Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr. Speaker: This day, I have asked the Chairman of Ways and Means to take the Chair for questions and further business. I hope that the House will understand why. I wish all hon. Members a very happy Christmas.

Whereupon, Mr. Bernard Weatherill, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Works (Warning Signs)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consult the relevant authorities and organisations, and then issue new guidelines for improved advance warning and clearer marking of all road works, including those undertaken for, and on behalf of, statutory authorities; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Warning signs at road works have been under constant discussion between the Department of Transport and all interested authorities and organisations for many years. Comprehensive instructions are contained in "Traffic Safety Measures for Road Works", first published in 1973. These instructions have been updated whenever necessary with advice notes, and a revised edition of the document will be published next year.

Mr. Janner: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that there has never been a time more than the present when the dangers caused by inadequate signs and the amount of road works has been greater as a result of the snow, slush and ice that are causing such a menace on our roads and pavements? Is he aware that local authorities throughout the country are anxious to deal with these dangers which, among other things, are forcing elderly people to stay at home—and they are likely to be there over the Christmas period—because they dare not go out? In the spirit of the season, will he consult the relevant authorities on how local authorities can be helped to deal, without delay, with our pavements, roads and road works?

Mr. Clarke: We steadily consult local authorities about road works and road signs. I realise that conditions on pavements get worse at this time of year when the snow and ice come. We shall certainly discuss with local authorities any ideas for improving traffic signs and road conditions round road works. We try to give authorities adequate grant to enable them to improve road conditions in their areas.

Heavy Lorries (Checks)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what checks are made of the gross weights of large vehicles and their axle weight distribution at points of entry into the United Kingdom; and whether such checks can be made on all like vehicles without disrupting traffic flows and delaying drivers.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My Department's staff carry out regular weight checks, supplemented by occasional enforcement "blitzes" at roll-on/roll-off ferry ports. There are now dynamic weighbridges, which impose minimum delay, at or close to all such ports. However, enforcement checks on every vehicle would be impracticable and would impose unacceptable congestion and delay.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. What proportion of heavy vehicles coming into ports of entry are found to be over the legal maximum weight? If schemes can be devised to judge the weights of vehicles by putting a metal 'strip across the road, will he encourage those new forms of test to be incorporated at all points of entry?

Mr. Clarke: At present about one in five vehicles stopped at ports is found to be overloaded, but that is because the traffic examiners tend to pick the most suspicious-looking vehicles. I doubt whether one in five of all lorries is overloaded. We are installing equipment, known as the dynamic weighbridge, which enables us to stop and check more lorries than before.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister's reply include points of entry into the United Kingdom across its land frontier? If, by reason of any local circumstances, the arrangements that he has described are not applicable, will he ensure that corresponding checks are carried out so that there is the same amount of surveillance?

Mr. Clarke: I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what arrangements apply within the land border of the United Kingdom, and I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know. Most of the arrangements that we enforce are at the ports, because they are the most convenient places to check incoming vehicles from other countries.

Mr. Ward: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that much of the resistance to the increased lorry weights proposed by my right hon. Friend is because there is no constant check at ports? That resistance is growing in constituencies such as my own. Is he further aware that Germany has adopted methods of showing weights by gauges on the lorries? Would it not be a reasonable imposition on lorry operators, at the port of entry, to prove that their loads are adequately distributed? If it could be shown that every lorry load was within the law, l am sure that much of the resistance shown by people living near the port of Poole would disappear.

Mr. Clarke: We keep having blitzes at ports in an effort to reassure people that we are stepping up enforcement. Technical advances are constantly being made. We shall bring in whatever new devices are available, as they become effective in practice. As a result of our present somewhat curious weight restrictions, some large vehicles, if they are to be legally loaded, are fully loaded. It is easier to overload above our present limits


within the capacity of containers than it would be if we went up to the kind of weight limits for which containers are designed.

Mr. Booth: Does the Under-Secretary accept that the statement that he made this morning—that one in five of the lorries checked is overweight—will do nothing to reassure people that we have adequate means of enforcing lorry weights? Does he further accept that it will be necessary for the Government to take further steps to assure people that there are adequate means of enforcement before we increase lorry weights in this country?

Mr. Clarke: The Government are anxious to enforce lorry weights. We stop and take action against many vehicles. One in five sounds alarming, but the check is done only on some vehicles. The traffic examiners, who are experienced in these matters, check lorries that look as though they are overloaded. Obviously many empty lorries are allowed to pass, as are lorries that are perfectly acceptable. A sign of the alertness of traffic examiners is their ability to spot the lorries that are labouring and down on their springs.

Channel Link

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a further announcement on a Channel link.

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest developments on the construction of the Channel tunnel.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): My French colleagues and I are pursuing joint studies with the aim of reaching a decision of principle as early as possible next year. All options are open, including that of relying on the development of existing services.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a private project, if not underwritten by public funds, is just the sort of exciting venture to fuel public self-confidence in national recovery?

Mr. Howell: I agree that it is an attractive prospect, if it can be achieved in co-ordination with our French partners. Clearly, talks with the French must go ahead. This is an international project and co-ordination with the French has to be maintained. We hope for rapid progress. I share my hon. Friend's belief that if it is achieved it could be an exciting and important project.

Mr. Fox: What criteria are involved in the schemes that have been presented to my right hon. Friend? Will he reassure us that his civil servants are not ruling out schemes because they come from one or two individuals?

Mr. Howell: None of the schemes that have been presented to the Government have been ruled out. I had the opportunity to see the details of all the schemes that are being put forward by the promoters, including the proposition that the existing ferry systems should be developed. Nothing has been ruled out. There has been no change in our position on the criteria. Britain is looking to the private sector to finance the project and bear the commercial risk.

Mr. Bagier: The Secretary of State is right to say that consultation has to take place between the French and the

British, but will he undertake to inject some dynamism into the discussions? It appears that a long time is being taken before any decisions are reached.

Mr. Howell: We are anxious to make rapid progress. Talks are constantly taking place with the French at official level, and ministerial exchanges are also taking place. Both the French and ourselves recognise the need to reach a decision in principle on whether there should be a fixed link, and to do so as early as possible.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. MacGregor and the British Steel Corporation that the last Channel tunnel project foundered because of political disagreement in this country, much of which had to do with Kent, and with the railway unions, which, I think, have now changed their minds? Does he realise that many of us believe that the tunnel will be of major assistance to British Rail? Will he continue to bear in mind that it is necessary, as far as possible, to get all-party agreement on the project so that it does not founder as the last one did?

Mr. Howell: All the considerations, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend, have to be borne in mind in reaching a decision in principle and choosing between the preferred options.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that legislation will be required before a Channel link can go ahead? Will he undertake to publish a White Paper as soon as possible, so that any benefit that might accrue to the country as a result of a Channel tunnel or link can be evaluated for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the South-East of England?

Mr. Howell: I confirm that legislation would be needed for a fixed link, but it is too early to say what form it would take. It is too early also to confirm or give undertakings about the form of statement or presentation, but I note what the hon. Gentleman said.

Road Accidents (Statistics)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were killed and injured in road accidents in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: For the 12 months ending June 1981 it is provisionally estimated that some 5,800 people were killed and 320,000 injured in road accidents.

Mr. Greenway: I understand that that represents a steady improvement in road accident statistics. A substantial proportion of road deaths and accidents occur during the Christmas and new year period, often due to heavy drinking and driving. Will my hon. and learned Friend draw the nation's attention to dangers of this kind, which often involve innocent people being killed, maimed or injured?

Mr. Clarke: We must not be complacent, because the numbers are still horrific, but in 1980 fewer people were killed than in any year since 1958, and traffic has trebled in that period.
Unfortunately, Christmas is always marred by an increase in road accidents, because some people drink too much and drive and kill others. I hope that the same enforcement efforts will be made this winter, that drivers will be responsible, and, not drink too much and make themselves a danger on the road.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that the problems this Christmas will be particularly severe because of the awful weather and the dangers on the roads caused by ice? Will he take steps now to enable local authorities to cope with those conditions and not wait for the weather forecasters to produce an unexpected thaw?

Mr. Clarke: We are worried about the problems of salting and gritting and keeping the roads in good condition. We hope to improve the arrangements for local authorities to look after our trunk and local authority roads. We have already issued a new standard of service, which we hope local authorities will achieve on trunk roads, and we have agreed with them a code of practice on how to achieve it. Within the limits of what is practicable—with the British weather, there are limits—I believe that local authorities will get out and salt and grit the roads as soon as they can when the weather is about to create dangerous conditions.

British Railways

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the new external financing limit announced for British Railways.

Mr. David Howell: In respect of the 1981–82 EFL, I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 2 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones).—[Vol. 14, c. 153.] The 1982–83 EFL of £950 million is about the same in real terms as the £867 million originally set for 1981–82.

Mr. Bagier: What representations has the Secretary of State had from British Rail about the need for massive investment in new rolling stock and track maintenance to provide a safe and reliable service? Has British Rail expressed its satisfaction with the amount that the right hon. Gentleman has just announced?

Mr. Howell: Naturally, British Rail and the Government are anxious to maintain an efficient, safe and modernised system. I discussed with British Rail its investment plans and hopes for the future. They are my hopes, too. As the hon. Gentleman knows, last night I announced my approval of the electrification of rail services between Colchester, Norwich and Harwich. I think that British Rail accepts—as I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept—that is is a demonstration of our commitment to the future of our railway system.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for his announcement about the East Anglian electrification? Nevertheless, does he realise that the piecemeal method of doing it is not entirely satisfactory? For example, his refusal to sanction the Cambridge part of the arrangement means that British Rail's planning will have to continue to rely on a mixture of diesel and electric on East Anglian lines, which is not the most efficient forward planning. In view of the continuing disagreement between the NUR and ASLEF, is there anything that my right hon. Friend can do to try to bang together the heads of these two unions to see whether they can reach an agreement that will enable the Government to sanction a full-scale electrification programme?

Mr. Howell: Obviously we do not want industrial disputes on the railways, and I hope that these matters can be resolved in a sensible and realistic way.
My hon. Friend asked about the electrification programme. It is right that the sanction and approval of electrification plans should be linked closely to productivity and business performance. There is a widespread recognition that this is a sensible and businesslike way to proceed in fulfilling the commitment in principle that the Government made in the summer to the 10-year rolling electrification programme.

Mr. Cowans: Is the Secretary of State aware that by not increasing the EFL to a more realistic level he lays himself open to the accusation from hon. Members and people outside the House that he is doing a Beeching by financial stealth?

Mr. Adley: Rubbish.

Mr. Howell: Talk of that kind is a little on the wild side. I have made it clear that in the Government's view there should be no substantial cuts in the network. British Rail recognises, as do the nationalised industries and the public services and private industry, that it must work within the disciplines and economic constraints demanded of it. I am confident that British Rail will make good progress within these constraints.

Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the increase in the EFL that he announced is less than the increase in the public service obligation and therefore that the borrowing limits of British Rail for that year will be reduced? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this constitutes a restriction upon British Rail's ability to invest, bearing in mind that at least one-third of its investment programme, on its own estimate, will have to come from borrowing?

Mr. Howell: The need to borrow will be reduced. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the present year. The original EFL was set at £867 million, but, as a result of adjustments, which I have announced to the House, it was raised to £920 million for the current year. Within that, it is correct to say that the PSO grant has been increased, but that reduces the need to borrow within an adjusted EFL.

British Railways Board

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss investment.

Mr. David Howell: I meet the chairman frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Cryer: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the BRB, will he congratulate him and British Rail workers on the service that they have provided during the terrible weather that we have been experiencing? Does not that fact reflect the great importance of the British Rail network in managing to keep services going? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that British Rail is approaching crisis point because of the lack of investment? Will he assure the House that if British Rail expresses a need for money to maintain its ageing permanent way structures, such as the Ribblehead viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle line, he will treat each case sympathetically? British Rail appears to be moving towards the closure of


this 86-mile major route network, which would be completely against the Minister's policy of no major closures. Will the right hon. Gentleman reinforce that now?

Mr. Howell: I have, I can and I will express my feelings, which are similar to those of the hon. Gentleman, to the chairman of British Rail and those involved about the work that they do in maintaining services in immmensely difficult conditions. We all recognise that. However, I counsel the hon. Gentlemdn against talking of crisis and using overdramatised language. In many areas the British Rail system operates to a very high level of performance. It does British Rail no service to be depicted constantly by those who claim to be its enthusiastic supporters as being on the verge of collapse and crisis. It has some highly efficient and effective systems, which are world beaters. If we heard more of that and less talk of crisis it would help the morale of British Rail.

Mr. Ward: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he tell him that there is widespread support from the taxpayers for my right hon. Friend's policy of insisting that British Rail demonstrates a fair return to the taxpayer before money is invested in it? Will he suggest to the chairman that one way in which British Rail could help itself would be to lease to private enterprise its catering facilities, which it seems quite incapable of maintaining?

Mr. Howell: The organisation of the catering side is a matter for the British Rail management. As for the general understanding of the importance of the good use of taxpayers' money by the commercial railways and the management of the system, the British Railways Board is the first to be apprised of that and to understand fully the realities of it.

Mr. Whitehead: When the Secretary of State discusses rail investment with the chairman of British Rail, will he consider the parlous state of many of British Rail's engineering workshops in Derby and elsewhere? Given the shrinkage of the wagon fleet and the fact that we have a successful record in exporting what is essentially an old technology, if the right hon. Gentleman is concerned to sing the praises of British Rail ought we not to be investing in new technology for our exporting industries?

Mr. Howell: Certainly we want to develop new technology, and British Rail and our coach and equipment builders are the first to recognise the need for it.

Heavy Lorries (Routes)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, following his statement of 1 December on lorries, people and the environment, he will take a new initiative in conjunction with local authorities to widen the system of designated routes for heavy vehicles.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We intend to issue further advice to local authorities so as to help them to make the most effective use of their powers to restrict heavy lorries to suitable routes.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that representing as I do a rural and urban constituency where many people are troubled by heavy lorries at existing weights, let alone those that the

Government and the House have sanctioned, I feel that it would enable people who are deeply concerned about the environment—farmers, as well as ordinary rural residents—to find these vehicles more acceptable if there were designated routes for heavy commercal vehicles? Heavy vehicles are using country lanes and roads that were not designed and constructed for the weights that they are carrying already, let alone the 40-tonne weight. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this whole matter would be far more acceptable to people if he improved and speeded up the designation of heavy vehicle routes?

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I ask for shorter supplementary questions?

Mr. Clarke: The Government accept that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory and that lorries are travelling on unsuitable roads and causing a nuisance. That is why we brought forward our proposal that there should be fewer, quieter and safer lorries. We propose to issue advice to local authorities on how they can use existing powers under the "Dykes" Act to designate more suitable lorry routes.

Mr. Snape: Before the Under-Secretary introduces any more long-overdue legislation, will he ensure that existing legislation is enforced, especially by county councils? The hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred to the "Dykes" Act. Will he draw the attention of the West Midlands county council to that legislation, which is almost a decade old, as that council refuses to implement it, to the considerable annoyance of my constituents in West Bromwich, who face considerable environmental pollution from heavy vehicles?

Mr. Clarke: We wish local authorities to make more use of their powers under the "Dykes" Act, but we have to accept that they know their areas better than we do. There are difficulties in designating routes. It is no good just moving lorries from one person's front door to some one else's. There is also a need to get on with the roads programme to provide the proper routes for the lorries to use. It is a pity that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spends so much of his time opposing the construction or improvement of roads such as the M40, ban which could provide exactly what we require—a proper lorry route avoiding a large number of villages and town all the way through the Midlands.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dykes.

Hon. Members: Author.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to refer to the 1973 Act. Will he give more positive encouragement to the use of the Act's powers? Looking at it from a standpoint different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will he welcome more schemes, such as the Windsor cordon?

Mr. Clarke: The short answer is "Yes". I congratulate my hon. Friend eight years later on having introduced the legislation in 1973. We wish that more progress could be made in its use. The Windsor cordon is probably the biggest example of what could be done. There was nearly another big lorry ban in North London. Unfortunately, the present GLC postponed it pending its large-scale inquiry into the future of the lorry in London.

Mr. Christopher Price: May I invite the Minister, after Christmas, to travel round the south circular in my constituency—

Mr. Dobson: On the Secretary of State for Employment's bike!

Mr. Price: —so that he can see for himself that some of the routes used by heavy lorries are quite unsuitable? The honest citizens of Lewisham, who want to go about their business, face appalling difficulties and pollution and cannot even cross the road.

Mr. Clarke: I know and have been round the south circular road. It is an experience that I keep to the minimum and, if I can avoid it, I shall not drive round it in the new year. Seriously, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are several areas in south London where the presence of heavy lorries merely exacerbates unsatisfactory road conditions and is offensive to local residents. We need a combination of discreet road improvements and programmes and we must designate proper lorry routes. In addition, we must decide what we can do to reduce the numbers of lorries and make them safer and quieter to improve existing conditions. The Government are dissatisfied with existing conditions and are trying to find a way to make progress.

Mr. Higgins: What form will the advice take? Will it include advice on restricting the hours during which lorries can operate on certain routes, not least on the south circular? The south circular is, of course, a myth.

Mr. Clarke: As we are still considering and drawing up the advice, I cannot give a precise answer. The best thing would be to give an indication of the range of powers available and the critieria that local authorities should apply when designating and enforcing lorry routes. I agree that the south circular is a myth. However, the Government are responsible only for the north circular. Welcome improvements are being made to that road so that heavy traffic can be taken out of the suburban back-streets of north London.

Mr. Cryer: Why does the Under-Secretary always emphasise that British Rail must meet profit criteria on its routes when no such criteria are applied to the road network? The Minister has never said that the M1 or the M62 must make a profit. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that lorries do not meet their road costs and that the best way to reduce lorry traffic is not to make more motorways, but to shift traffic from the roads to the railways, thereby stopping the anti-rail bias
towards freight transport that his Department seems to exhibit?

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May we please have shorter supplementary questions? Otherwise, we shall get ourselves into trouble.

Mr. Clarke: We subject road schemes to the most rigorous economic analysis. Unless there are overwhelming environmental reasons for proceeding with an uneconomic scheme, we proceed only with those that will show a worthwhile economic return. There should be no conflict between rail and road. It is ludicrous that road enthusiasts should attack the railways and that railway enthusiasts should attack the roads. The networks serve different types of traffic and both contribute to the country's economic well-being.

Mr. Emery: As regards designated routes, when will my hon. and learned Friend be able to make an announcement about new bypasses? Small towns that are inadequately equipped to take designated routes—such as Axminster, where the main road is only 16½ ft wide—may then not need to put up with heavy traffic and heavy articulated lorries trundling through them.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend recently gave me an opportunity to see conditions in Axminister and stressed the town's need for a bypass. On Monday we announced this year's grant for local authorities. In that grant we concentrated on providing funds for bypasses. Fifty new schemes, costing over £1 million each, including 35 definite bypass schemes, were financed by the Government last Monday. After Christmas we shall produce a White Paper setting out the trunk road programme for the coming years. We hope to make worthwhile progress on bypass schemes. Axminister's problems are very much in our minds.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How is the Scottish response to the White Paper being collected and collated? Yesterday it was announced that we shall get £109 million of our money back from the EEC for the roads programme. What share of that money will go to Scotland and to the North, instead of being concentrated in the South, as Treasury leaks imply?

Mr. Clarke: The Department is not responsible for roads in Scotland. They are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The arrangements that the Prime Minister negotiated for the refund of Britain's contribution have enabled large sums to be put into the trunk road programme. The money has enabled us to maintain a level of trunk road building that would otherwise have been impossible. Therefore, the EEC refund has contributed to our ability to build bypasses and to take lorries away from people's homes.

Mr. Hughes: I am well aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for Scotland's roads, but I am asking the Minister how he is co-operating with the Secretary of State to discover the Scottish response to the White Paper "Lorries, People and the Environment."

Mr. Clarke: The consultations on the White Paper on the Armitage report are nationwide, and the Scottish Office will be involved in considering the representations received from Scotland. The Government as a whole will consider all representations on the proposals in the course of the next two or three months.

Commuter Services (London and South-East)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to bring forward new proposals to improve rail commuter services in London and the South-East.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that the British Railways Board, whose responsibility it is, will continue to improve its services.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that even the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recognised that if British Rail is to improve its services in London and the South-East, and to improve productivity, a substantial amount of public investment will be needed? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he must get on and


improve public investment as soon as possible? If he does not, there is a possibility that the dynamic weighbridge will go down in history as the only dynamic aspect of the Government's transport policy.

Mr. Clarke: Some odd things are said about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's comments about the commuter services in London and the South-East. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman should read its report. It shows that a great deal can be done within existing resources if productivity is improved and the present very high level of investment in London Transport is maintained. The Government are glad that improvements have been made in commuter services in recent years, and we are determined that such improvements should continue. That can be done within practicable and present levels of investment if some improvements in productivity are also made.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that British Rail could put forward a simple proposal to undertake a major review of how its trains are cleaned? Does he realise that my constituents find it unforgiveable that the trains that they use every day should be so filthy?

Mr. Clarke: We are concerned to meet passengers' preferences. I agree that all the evidence is that passengers want cleaner trains that are punctual and reliable. Passengers do not want to pay greatly increased fares so that they can have ultra-modern rolling stock. Therefore, we have pointed out that we do not see the need for extra investment in order to produce ever glossier trains. We want better and cleaner use of the existing, reasonable level of stock.

Channel Link

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of British Steel and the chairman of British Railways on the respective merits of the rail-only tunnel and the road-rail/bridge-tunnel crossing of the English Channel; and whether any future meetings are planned.

Mr. David Howell: I am in touch with all promoters of schemes for a fixed Channel link, as well as with Dover harbour board, representing port and shipping interests. Further meetings will take place as necessary.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Since the road-rail/tunnel-bridge would carry much more traffic and would create more jobs—not merely in the South-East—than the single rail-only tunnel project, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, provided the money can be raised for the more imaginative scheme, the Government will not be predjudiced against it?

Mr. Howell: As I have said in reply to earlier questions, the Government's mind is open on all the options and no scheme has been ruled out.

Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the road-rail/tunnel-bridge would not only be a considerable navigational danger in the most heavily-used waterway in the world, but would be an environmental disaster for the South, because of the number of heavy goods vehicles that it would attract?

Mr. Howell: All aspects of the project involve problems and challenges. All such considerations—including those that the hon. Gentleman implied—are being taken into account.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Given all the grandiose schemes that nationalised industries are putting forward, although those industries are losing thousands of millions of pounds, will my right hon. Friend ensure that no more Government money is invested in such a scheme and that, if the Government have money to spare, they will use it to improve our road system, which is a disgrace to a civilised country?

Mr. Howell: I made it clear earlier that we look to the private sector to finance the project and to bear the commercial risks. I hope that that meets my hon. Friend's point.

Advanced Passenger Train

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will travel on the advanced passenger train as part of his assessment of this grant-aided project.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total estimated capital cost of bringing the advanced passenger train fully into scheduled services on inter-city routes.

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a further statement on the tilt mechanism of the advanced passenger train and the allocation of his Department's funding for its development.

Mr. David Howell: I have already travelled on one of the advanced passenger train prototypes, which worked very well on my journey. I cannot say what the capital cost of further APTs would be until the board submits proposals for their construction. Approval of a fleet of APTs will depend on the success of the prototypes in commercial service. I and the board will also wish to be convinced that such a fleet would be good value for money and that the board's inter-city business could support the investment involved.

Mr. Adley: Is not investment in railway technology in Britain puny compared with that in France? We have spent on the APT less than one-twentieth of the amount that the French have spent on the line from Paris to Lyon, which incorporated no advanced technology. Will my right hon. Friend try to reverse the sad, age-old saga in Britain that we have the finest inventors in the world, but that we are hopeless at financing and marketing such projects?

Mr. Howell: I appreciate my hon. Friend's feeling, but it is not always clever just to spend more money. It is important to have the right and most innovative technology. The advanced passenger train is skilled and ingenious technology. As my hon. Friend knows, it runs better on curvy routes. Therefore one is not faced with the need, as was the case with the Paris to Lyon line, to build a completely new and very expensive track. Those considerations, as well as the money spent, must be kept in mind.

Mr. Whitehead: Is not the APT adapted technology as well as innovative, which is one of its great strengths? Although £37 million has been spent so far, it still


represents value for money. Will the Minister confirm that during the two months before the disasters that overtook the APT in the severe weather last week it ran trouble-free on that route?

Mr. Howell: Yes. My trip was trouble-free, and the hon. Gentleman's word "adapted" is the appropriate word in this case.

Privatisation

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the response he has had to his policy of reducing the level of public enterprise in transport and related services.

Mr. Clarke: Our policy is to introduce more private capital into the transport system. We are making good progress and we shall ensure that it is maintained.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister confirm that the independent consultants called in by British Transport Hotels Ltd. advised against going ahead, at least at this stage, with the sale of Gleneagles, the North British and the Caledonian hotels? Is it not a measure of the extreme doctrinaire attitude of the Government that they are not only hell-bent on selling successful public enterprises, but that they are failing to get the best possible deal on the market? They are guilty of cheating the public by acting against the public interest.

Mr. Clarke: That deal was put together by British Rail. The Government do not know what advice it took, but we are sure that it took as much advice as it could before going ahead with the proposal. British Rail could benefit by getting private capital into the subsidiaries, which will unlock the resources that are now locked into them. The hotels will also benefit, because for many years they have been deprived of investment. They have been under the shadow of the main rail business and have not had access to as much capital as they would wish, because whenever there have been restraints the money has gone to the main railway business.

Mr. Chapman: How much private capital has been invested in the introduction of long-distance, private coach services? Is it true that, as a result of that investment, coach fares have fallen dramatically? If so, will my hon. and learned Friend encourage more private capital to be put into State ventures?

Mr. Clarke: We have encouraged that investment by the Transport Act 1980, which removed the old licensing restrictions. There has been a tremendous upsurge in inter-city travel and many private operators have introduced important inter-city routes. National Express also took advantage of many opportunities. It is an example of both private and public enterprise taking advantage of the liberalising of the transport system, which the Government wholly favour.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the Minister's reply to the suggestion that if further routes are allocated to Yeowarts in Whitehaven, more rural routes will be lost in my constituency?

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that there is a connection between the Yeowarts appeal and the loss of rural services in Cumbria, as is being claimed by some people in the hon. Gentleman's locality. I understand that Yeowarts has

made new applications for Sunday and evening services, which were claimed to be unprofitable routes. I hope that it is not argued that Yeowarts was first creaming off profitable routes, to which there was resistance, and that it is now taking on unprofitable routes. The cross-subsidy case is important, but it can be grossly overstated. I do not accept the interpretation that is now being put on events in Cumbria.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. and learned Friend do his best to encourage investment in such enterprises by their staff? When staff become involved in some forth of partnership deal, they give of their best.

Mr. Clarke: The National Freight Company denationalisation is one of the best examples of that. It is interesting that when the Government legislate to enable them to denationalise such a company, the staff come forward with proposals that enable them to acquire a stake in it. It took the wind out of the sails of the doctrinaire Opposition, who were against the legislation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Government are so keen on public authorities operating in a commercial manner, why are they compelling British Rail to sell its assets, when British Rail believes that that sale is against its commercial and business interests?

Mr. Clarke: We have an agreement with the chairman of British Rail and the British Railways Board that early progress will be made to get private capital into British Rail hotels, Sealink and the property board. Obviously it obtains the best possible price for the stake that the private sector buys. It makes good sense for the railways and the subsidiaries, and it will open up new opportunities for the subsidiary businesses.

Channel Link

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his reply to the report of the Transport Committee on the Channel link

Mr. David Howell: I have accepted an invitation to meet the Committee early in the new year.

Mr. Whitehead: I thank the Secretary of State for that rather fatuous reply. The House will wish to have a positive response from the Department to the Select Committee. Is the Secretary of State aware that there have been many proposals for a rail tunnel? It appears to be one of the few subjects upon which the Prime Minister can converse with the French President. When can we get an answer about the sort of tunnel that will be agreed?

Mr. Howell: The joint study cannot be completed before early next year. We hope for rapid progress, but we must co-ordinate with the pace and the needs of the French. It is an international project and we must work with our partners in carrying forward the studies.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In my right hon. Friend's reply to the Transport Select Committee, will he highlight the fact that the portal to portal costs will come entirely from private resources, but that public investment will be needed for the Cheriton development and for the terminal in London? Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what the French Government's attitude is to proceeding with the tunnel at an early date, because of the valuable advantages that it can bring to all parts of the United Kingdom in dealing with the EEC?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend's last point will depend upon the precise timing of my appearance, the position of our discussions with the French and the attitude of the French Government, but I shall try to do my best. The question of public or other investment outside the main scheme will differ with the various schemes, but I hope that all those matters will emerge both in my discussions with the Select Committee and in public debate.

Investment Programme

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current investment programme on roads and railways, respectively, in Scotland; and what are the estimated figures for 1982 to 1985.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Within the ceiling set by the Government, decisions on the investment programme for the railways, and priorities within the programme, are a matter for the British Railways Board. Responsibility for the road programme in Scotland lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise that the Scottish economy, more than most other parts of the United Kingdom economy, depends to an enormous extent on the quality of the transport system? Will the Government treat Scotland as a special case for rail investment, and will the Minister press that point upon the British Railways Board?

Mr. Clarke: British Rail has a number of investment plans in Scotland. I do not believe that the board is neglecting Scotland in its future investment programme. We are anxious to maintain British Rail's investment at a reasonable, affordable level. We have not reduced its investment ceiling and we hope to provide adequately for its forthcoming projects in Scotland. The Government cannot step in and instruct the board to consider any part of the United Kingdom as a special case.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In the Government's discussions with Sir Peter Parker about rail investment, will the Minister make it clear that there is intense dissatisfaction in Scotland with the quality of the rolling stock for passenger travel there? Does he recognise that there have been many complaints that British Rail is not doing enough to generate freight traffic in Scotland and is, therefore, losing traffic because of its lack of initiative?

Mr. Clarke: There are proposals to replace much of the old rolling stock in Scotland, partly by the Ayr electrification scheme and partly by the programme of replacement diesel multiple unit vehicles. No doubt British Rail will submit its proposals to the Government in due course. I shall draw the attention of the board to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the marketing of freight services in Scotland. Both the board and the Government are anxious that all marketing skills should be used to expand the railway freight business.

A564 Stoke-Derby Link

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress of the preparatory work for the Blythe bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes. We expect to reach our decision on the remaining statutory proposals next month.

Mr. Knox: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that he expects the construction of the road to begin in 12 months?

Mr. Clarke: I very much hope so. If we continue to make the smooth progress with the scheme that we have made so far, my hon. Friend's hopes will be fulfilled. I know the vigour with which he has been pressing for the scheme during the past few years and how much he and his constituents await the day when construction begins.

Heavy Lorries

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further discussions have taken place on maximum lorry weights following his statement on 1 December.

Mr. David Howell: The House debated the Government's proposals on 9 December. Draft amending regulations and a technical note on the effects of the weight increases proposed have been published and interested organisations have been invited to comment by 31 January. There will then be a further full debate on the Government's proposals for dealing with the problems of the environment and heavy lorries before any new regulations are brought into effect.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but would it not be nicer for him to give the nation a Christmas present by pledging that the Government have no intention of allowing the maximum weight to reach 40 tonnes?

Mr. Howell: In my earlier answer I made the Government's position clear. There will be a further full debate on the Government's proposals. That is the right way to proceed. The House debated the issue fully and came to the conclusion that there should be a period for consultation and debate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister confirming that, although the regulations as laid down in statute are subject to annulment, a decision will be taken before regulations are laid and come into effect?

Mr. Howell: I am setting out the position exactly as it was set out in the debate on 9 December and in my earlier answer. There will be a further full debate on the draft regulations, and following that decisions will be reached on the regulations that are appropriate. That is the position as I set it out earlier, and I am setting it out again now.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Minister of State, Treasury (Responsibilities)

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proportion of the time of the Minister of State, Treasury, will be spent dealing with Civil Service functions of the Management and Personnel Office.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Whatever time is necessary to enable me to discharge my duty to answer in this House for these functions.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is it not unsatisfactory that the Minister should be answering for a Department for which


he has no responsibility? Should not the Prime Minister, as it is her Department, come to the House to answer Civil Service questions? How are the Civil Service affairs being run by the Department, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster being co-ordinated, properly run and answered for in the House?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is not unusual for junior Ministers to speak on matters for which they do not have day-to-day responsibility. I speak with the full authority of both my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.

Mr. Ward: During my hon. Friend's busy day, will he find time to discuss with the Civil Service Department alternatives to index-linked pensions, which are causing tremendous resentment in the private sector?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Scott committee reported on that matter. It is an especially complicated issue, which the Government are considering. I hope that the Government's views will be made available to the House shortly.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will list the functions of the Management and Personnel Office and any other Civil Service functions for which the Minister of State, Treasury, is responsible on behalf of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Hayhoe: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 12 November, I answer in this House for Management and Personnel Office matters, for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has day-to-day responsibility. Details of the MPO's functions are set out in the note placed in the Library by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I am not responsible for Civil Service functions on behalf of my right hon. and noble Friend.

Mr. Canavan: If the Minister has any responsibility for industrial relations within the Civil Service, will he have a word with the Lord Advocate about the stupid decision to prosecute a Civil Service trade union leader under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 for his activities during the Civil Service strike earlier this year? Does the Minister realise that the prosecution is having such a damaging effect on industrial relations within the Civil Service that most of Scotland's 50,000 civil servants staged walk-outs and demonstrations last week?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have responsibility for industrial relations in the Civil Service, but I carry no responsibilty for prosecutions in Scotland or, indeed, in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Those are matters for the legal authorities.

Redeployment

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she will consider the redeployment of civil servants to cities of high unemployment, such as Leicester; and whether she will make a statement.

Mr. Hayhoe: There are at present no plans to extend the Government's dispersal programme beyond what was announced on 26 July 1979. The programme, to which the Government remain fully committed, was the result of a considered review.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that Leicester, which until recently was sometimes called the most

prosperous city in Europe, is now suffering from hideous unemployment, which in part of my constituency has reached more than 50 per cent.? Does he not see that it is necessary to advance the Government's programme of dispersal to help such areas as Leicester, which are in desperate need because of the dreadful Government policies, which have done nothing to curb unemployment?

Mr. Hayhoe: Despite the costs of the dispersal programme the Government have continually reiterated their commitment to it, which was announced in July 1979. The major features of the programme are for Glasgow, East Kilbride, Sheffield, Bootle and Cardiff—all areas with higher unemployment than even Leicester.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the redeployment of civil servants that is needed, but fewer civil servants so that there is more room for private enterprise to flourish? Will that not solve the country's problems more quickly than anything?

Mr. Hayhoe: The new jobs that will be needed to reduce unemployment will come from private enterprise. My hon. Friend knows that we are making good progress in reducing the size of the Civil Service and in increasing its efficiency.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister contrast the need for stockbrokers and estate agents with the need for civil servants to make payments to the increasing number of people in receipt of unemployment and supplementary benefit? Do not thousands of Civil Service jobs provide, as part of the Welfare State, an important service for those who do not have the money with which stockbrokers line their pockets?

Mr. Hayhoe: If the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to say that civil servants carry out essential functions, often determined by decisions of the House or the Government, of course I gladly acknowledge that that is so.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the whole policy of redeploying Civil Service jobs out of London, especially as my constituency has lost 1,100 manufacturing jobs at Hoover to Wales and Scotland in recent weeks? What about a little redeployment of Civil Service jobs to where they are needed in Perivale?

Mr. Hayhoe: As my hon. Friend knows, we reviewed the previous Government's plans on dispersal. The decisions reached in 1979 were right. I appreciate that some of those who are moving from London are critical of the decision, but I reiterate again from the Dispatch Box that the Government will abide by their dispersal programme.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that the substantial number of civil servants employed in supplementary and unemployment benefit offices cannot be redeployed because they are necessary in all parts of the country? Will he give an estimate of the increase in turnover of work in supplementary and unemployment benefit offices this year compared with the previous year?

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman should address the second part of his question to Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security. To my knowledge, no one has suggested redeploying staff in benefit offices.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How will transferring civil servants from one city to another help such cities as


Leicester where there are high levels of unemployment? Would it not be better if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, we ensured that those civil servants who are no longer required are directed and retrained so that they can go into manufacturing industry, which creates the wealth of the country?

Mr. Hayhoe: Having made a firm commitment to dispersal, it is right that the Government should stand by their commitment and carry through their word.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Business of the House

Mr. John Silkin: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week of our return from the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for the first week of our return will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY 19 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. Motion relating to the Transfer of Functions (Minister for the Civil Service and Treasury) Order.
THURSDAY 21 JANUARY—Supply (8th Allotted Day); subject for debate to be announced.
FRIDAY 22 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the Leader of the House clarify an issue that has arisen on Civil Service questions? On the Wednesday after we return from the Christmas Recess an order will come before the House on the transfer of functions. It is rather confusing because I understand that at present we are not able to table questions to the Civil Service Minister that cover the full range of Civil Service responsibilities as certain questions have to be tabled on days when Treasury Questions are being answered. We now have 10 minutes of Question Time every four weeks which cannot be used as well as they might be. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider these matters and give some guidance to the House on the nature of the questions that we can ask and when we can ask them?

Mr. Pym: The amount of time that is available to any one Department or Ministry is the subject of an arrangement that is reached by agreement through the usual channels. That is the normal form. It is a matter for the Chair and not for me to decide which questions are in order and which questions may be asked. However, in so far as I have any responsibility in this matter, I shall make inquiries into the issue.

Mr. Terence Higgins: When are we likely to have a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Procedure and Supply of the previous Session?

Mr. Pym: I am anxious to arrange a debate on the report. It will not take place in the first few weeks after our return, but it might take place before the end of February.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the transfer of functions order will be taken on Wednesday 20 January? If so, may I tell him that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has yet to complete its examination of the order? There are some detailed matters to investigate. If, for example, the Committee wanted to call witnesses, it would happen on the following Tuesday. That would clearly prejudice a complete examination of the order if it is to be taken on the Wednesday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that arrangement.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on the textile industry and the multi-fibre

arrangement proposals? He will be aware that the industry is deeply concerned about the adverse effects of the Government's proposals following the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Pym: There has been plenty of time for the Joint Committee to consider the transfer of functions order, but I am prepared to consider the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we want to make progress with the order. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the Government's decision to the House a long time ago.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade made a statement yesterday on the MFA. It was made very soon after the negotiations had reached a certain stage and in response to the request of the House. I will bear the hon. Gentleman's request in mind and I shall consider whether time can be made available, but I am not very hopeful that Government time will be found in the near future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I remind the House that business questions ale taking time out of the Adjournment debate. I ask for brief questions and answers.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the long-awaited debate on the Middle East did not take place yesterday? In noting the strong feelings on both sides of the House over recent decisions in the Knesset, can he assure us that there will be a debate on the Middle East without delay?

Mr. Pym: No, I cannot give that undertaking. I received no requests yesterday for an extension of time, which would have been one possible way of enabling a debate to take place. I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of such a debate, but I cannot see an opportunity offering itself in the near future.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be an early and urgent debate on our universities? The announcement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science about a £50 million redundancy fund raises more questions than it answers. A Consolidated Fund Bill debate is no substitute for a proper debate after the new year.

Mr. Pym: I regard the universities as a suitable subject for debate on a Supply day.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable criticism was expressed in the House last night because of the short debate that took place on Poland, which must be considered one of the most important of current issues? Will he try to find time for a further debate so that the House may truly express its opinion on the situation in Poland now and as it will be when we reassemble?
I emphasise what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said. The textile industry, which employs over 630,000 people, is desperately concerned about the MFA. It is vital that we should have a debate in Government time on that subject after we reassemble.

Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend must not ask for too much. The Government volunteered a debate on foreign affairs, including Poland. I was glad that we were able to hold that debate. For various reasons, it was shorter by an hour or


more than had been expected. As I have said, I did not receive a request from any quarter for an extension. However, I will keep my hon. Friend's request in mind.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the fibre and textile industries. As my hon. Friend knows, I previously made a day available, and parliamentary days are few and far between. I shall keep his request in mind, but I cannot go further than that now.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the Procedure Committee, will he say how it is now possible for us to resolve the problem of collapsing Adjournments when hon. Members say that they wish other debates to take place in time which otherwise would be at the disposal of the House?

Mr. Pym: From time to time the House sets up Select Committees on procedure with a general remit. There is not one at present. The work of the Procedure Committee in the previous Session—I hope that it will continue shortly in this Session—relates to Supply and the control of expenditure. We are right to concentrate on that at present. No doubt at some time in the not too distant future—perhaps in the next Session, but I cannot say for certain—a Committee can be re-established with a general remit to cover the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. At the same time other issues could be considered.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Having regard to the serious report in last night's edition of The New Standard on abuses at Acton London Transport depot, will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on London Transport to establish whether there are similar abuses at other stations or whether Acton has been singled out unfairly? At the same time we could debate the pressures from such a situation in pushing up the fares of Londoners.

Mr. Pym: As we have recently had two debates on that subject, it is rather unlikely that I shall find it possible to make room for a third.

Mr. Michael English: When the House resumes, will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement arising out of Mr. Speaker's statement yesterday? We seem to have been left in limbo. I have in my hand a list of 22 people who were killed in the First World War when Members of the House and 23 who were killed in the Second World War. A Prime Minister has been shot in the Lobby. Lobby correspondents, Officers and servants of the House have died while serving their country in various ways. There is not a room in the House for commemorating such occasions.

Mr. Pym: I shall keep the hon. Gentleman's request in mind. I am aware of the losses that the House has suffered in both world wars. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. However, I have no intention in the week that we return of saying anything further about the statement that was made yesterday by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)? The Government obviously thought that it was sufficiently important to have

a debate on the Middle East and they provided time yesterday for it. Hon. Members probably did not realise that the Governmemt would have allowed an extension of time. Had I known that, I would have pushed for an extension. This is a vital matter. The current activities and the bunker mentality of the Prime Minister of Israel could lead to severe threats to world trade and world peace. I plead for an early debate on the Middle East.

Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend has heard already the requests that I have received. They are multifarious. But time is limited. I shall keep his request in mind. The matter is very important, but I cannot make time available in the week that we return.

Mr. Greville Janner: Having regard to the continued disruption to people's lives in Britain by the unremitting Arctic conditions, which will no doubt be followed by floods, are the Government proposing to make a statement during the week of our return or to allow time for a debate, or otherwise to indicate what, if anything, they propose to do to enable local and statutory authorities to deal with what is an emergency in most of the country?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir.

Mr. Peter Snape: Has the Leader of the House any plans for a debate on the vexed question of nurses' pay, particularly bearing in mind the present niggardly 4 per cent. offer and remembering the honeyed words of sympathy which the Prime Minister uttered in those halcyon days when she was Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Pym: I made some comments about the negotiations on nurses' pay in the debate on Monday afternoon. The subject also arose for debate under the Consolidated Fund Bill. I have nothing to add to what was said on that occasion.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: As this is the season of peace and good will, may we have a statement from the Home Secretary as to why he tried to bully the Minister responsible for sport into lifting a proposed temporary ban on certain blood sports just so that the Home Secretary and his bloodthirsty friends could go out shooting birds during the Christmas holidays? Does the Leader of the House approve of such extra-parliamentary activities?

Mr. Pym: I hope that it will occur to the hon. Gentleman, before too long that it is also for him the season of good will. I did not think that his opening comments were reflected in the question that he subsequently put to me.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Leader of the House clarify his present position about Special Standing Committees? Is he really saying that he has no intention of using the very useful procedure, which was used last year, for any Bill during this Session? Surely there must be one Bill that is appropriate to that procedure.

Mr. Pym: I have said that I thought that it was unlikely that we would use the procedure this Session, but I did not close the door on the possibility of using it. I thought that I had made that clear.

Air Travel Reserve Fund (Amendment)

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the scope of the Air Travel Reserve Fund to provide compensation for passengers travelling by scheduled airline services in the event of the airline going into liquidation after the purchase of the ticket and subject to the full published fare having been paid.
In seeking the leave of the house to introduce legislation to amend the Air Travel Reserve Fund Act 1975, I start by reminding the House that in the early 1970s we experienced the failure of several tour companies, particularly the Court Line, and that that led to pressure by consumer groups and others for the protection of holidaymakers. The result was the 1975 Act, under which a levy is imposed on each package tour to provide a fund from which losses can be made good and thereby prevent people from losing the holiday to which, in many cases, they have looked forward for almost a year.
Since then there has been little evidence of other tour operators going out of business, and as a result the fund has built up very substantially. Indeed, in the most recent report of the Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency it is stated that the accumulated fund increased in the past year by £1·9 million to £18 million.
The average holidaymaker, as a result of the Act and by the combination of the bonding of the operator and the control of the licence to act as a tour arranger, now feels considerably more secure than he did in the early 1970s. However, the protection extended through the Act is by no means complete, in that it refers exclusively to those who choose to take their holidays through a package tour arrangement. The protection does not extend to those, perhaps often heading in the same direction, perhaps even by the same airline, who are travelling on a normal ticket and not as part of a package. Nor does the cover of the 1975 Act extend to the business traveller or to those visiting friends and relatives abroad.
It is arguable that the loss sustained by people in the latter categories—for example, parents visiting children in Australia and New Zealand, who become stranded there because the airline goes out of business while they are away from the United Kingdom—is far greater than the losses of those who lose their package holidays. My proposal, therefore, is to extend the scope of the fund set up under the 1975 Act and to protect all passengers of an airline that goes out of business. It would be done by authorising the use of the fund's accumulated reserves, to which I have referred, for that purpose.
Who can deny that the economic failure of an airline is a serious possibility in 1981–82? Few would deny that airlines are in poor economic shape, partly because of the recession and partly because of the cut-throat competition, particularly across the Atlantic, which has led to inadequate returns and difficulties with cash flow. Everyone in the House will be delighted that Laker Airways appears to have been saved from extinction, but who can deny, merely judging by the press reports of the last few days, that it has been a very close run thing? Reports of the difficulties may have led some passengers to fly by other airlines, thereby intensifying the cash flow problems, whereas if my scheme had been in operation that would not have been so.
What I am proposing is good for the airlines and good for the consumer. If, as I hope, it never happens that an airline gets into such difficulties, so much the better. I am simply suggesting that we take the precaution of extending the area to which the fund applies to include those who are not covered by it at present. We shall have lost nothing if an airline does not get into difficulties, but we shall have achieved a more even-handed protection for the man who goes by charter aircraft and the man who flies by scheduled service.
In 1981 far more people than ever before went on their vacations by individual arrangements, which involves the purchase of an individual airline ticket, and more people are eschewing the attractions of the package tour. The cash is there in the fund. No additional call upon the taxpayer need be made, and the travel agents, among others, will be reassured that they will not be held responsible if an airline goes into liquidation after a client has purchased a ticket.
Finally, it is appropriate that I should introduce the Bill at the holiday season. It is certainly appropriate that we should recognise that it should be no function of the law to protect one type of passenger but not another.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in Mr. R. A. McCrindle.

AIR TRAVEL RESERVE FUND (AMENDMENT)

Mr. R. A. McCrindle accordingly presented a Bill to extend the scope of the Air Travel Reserve Fund to provide compensation for passengers travelling by scheduled airline services in the event of the airline going into liquidation after the purchase of the ticket and subject to the full published fare having been paid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed [Bill 46].

Cyprus

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In view of the late start of the Adjournment debates, I propose to allow the first debate, on Cyprus, to run until 11.30 am, and that succeeding debates should have half an hour each as on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I wish to draw the attention of the House once again to Cyprus. I last raised the question of the Cyprus tragedy in an Adjournment debate in August 1975. The intervening years have brought little hope but much suffering and misfortune to this remarkably beautiful Mediterranean island.
I have not come to cheer on one side or the other but to cheer on the people of Cyprus in their struggle for a just, honourable and lasting settlement and my Government in their attempts to facilitate such a settlement. As one of the three guarantor Powers, Britain is pledged to support the independence of Cyprus, and, of course it was a Conservative Government who correctly gave the pledge.
I do not underestimate the problems posed for successive British Governments by the Cyprus crisis and the agony of the Cypriot people. I hope that I do not over-estimate our diplomatic strength, but I believe that over the years my country has failed in its special moral commitment and left undone things that could have been done, particularly following the coup of 15 July 1974.
Britain has ties with Cyprus going back to 1878. Cyprus is a fellow member of the Commonwealth and the Council of Europe. On no account can we accept the situation as a fait accompli on some faraway holiday island. The decisions of the United Nations are being treated with armed contempt, and grave damage is being done to United Nations' authority and effectiveness. United Nations resolution No. 3212 was supported by 117 nations, including Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. None voted against it and none abstained, which is almost unheard of in the General Assembly, yet it has still to be implemented. The United Nations peacekeeping force, in which for years Britain has played a leading role, does excellent work. It should be strengthened and given wider responsibilities to cover the protection of both communities and to guard the integrity of the island.
We should not give ourselves to recriminations and the repetition of actions with which we are all familiar. It is sufficient to say that prior to 1974 the Turks exercised patience and restraint in the face of provocation. In particular, in the important years 1960 to 1963 there was an incredible failure to give the Turks a full part in the new independent Cyprus. The Greek colonels wanted to reactivate the EOKA struggle for enosis. The arrival of the murderer, Nicos Sampson, as President of Cyprus was an outrage. I speak as one who was ambushed by members of EOKA prior to independence.
Using the coup as a pretext, Turkey invaded Cyprus—my right hon. Friend's predecessor was wrong to open up a debate on when is an invasion not an invasion—allegedly as a guarantor of the independence of Cyprus. Approximately 40 per cent. of the total territory of the Republic of Cyprus still remains under Turkish

military occupation. In 1974 Turkish Cypriots represented only 18 per cent. of the population. The area occupied happened to contain 60 per cent. of the agricultural land, 90 per cent. of the tourist accommodation, 83 per cent. of the cargo handling capacity and 55 per cent. of the mines.
The occupation must, in all honesty, be seen as the first and most obvious barrier on the way to a free and independent Cyprus. So long as the so-called Attila line runs from Lefka in the west to Famagusta in the east, Britain can be seen by the whole world to be failing in its duties as a guarantor Power.
The House has previously noted the plight of the refugees in Cyprus. The 200,000 Greek-Cypriot refugees, including 50,000 children, represent 40 per cent. of the Greek population. They are still prevented by sheer force from returning to their homes, businesses and farms. The Government and people of Cyprus have done a wonderful job in looking after such a large number of refugees, but their right to return to their towns and villages must not be overlooked by the House.
The question of the so-called missing people must be tackled by the international community on humanitarian grounds. I am told that the committee to investigate the fact of persons missing in Cyprus since 1974 was set up in April after meetings between the Greek-Cypriot committee of relatives of missing persons and Mr. Denktash. Some 2,000 Greek and 500 Turkish Cypriot cases are involved. The committee consists of representatives of both sides and a United Nations Red Cross representative, but procedural disputes have prevented investigations taking place. The committee continues to exist only because neither side wishes to take responsibility for killing it off. That is not good enough. The wives, lovers, mothers and fathers of the missing soldiers have a right to know whether they are alive or officially dead. Will Britain give a lead in getting the matter settled once and for all?
The Turkish authorities have been settling farming families from Anatolia and former Turkish soldiers in the so-called "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus". Altering the demographic structure of Cyprus in that way and passing on houses and farms of the uprooted Greek-Cypriots must be condemned without reservation, as it has been by the United Nations.
The Turkish authorities could and should further scale down their occupying force. There can be no conceivable reason for the continued presence of 20,000 troops. Incidentally, what is the Government's latest information on the rumours that the garrison is being reinforced by 7,000?
A reduction of the garrison would bring minor relief to Turkey's well-documented economic plight. It would also help Turkey's military Government regain the political friendship of those members of the world community on whom she depends, almost totally, for financial support.
All British Governments have appreciated the fact that the Turkish contribution to NATO is crucial. The morning after our debate on Poland is a good time to pay tribute to the military strength of Turkey and the courage and dedication of her soldiers, sailors and airmen. However, the importance of our NATO ally has led to a tendency in the Foreign Office over the years to play down Britain's obligations to Cyprus. Turkey will remain in the alliance, I hope, for many years, but in reality only so long as it is in her defence interests to do so.
To obtain stability in the eastern Mediterranean it is necessary to achieve first a settlement in Cyprus. Without such a settlement, NATO's south-east flank, bordering the Middle East, with its tensions and tank armies, will remain a matter of continued concern.
I appreciate the presence of my right hon. Friend this morning. I trust that I have not delayed his departure either to bring Christmas cheer to his constituents or to be with his family at home. Cyprus for him will be one of many problems on his new desk, but its importance should not be overlooked.
Who, following recent political events in Greece and noting the results of the election and the country's present views on NATO and the European Community, would deny that Cyprus has been an underlying factor? I would mention Mr. Papandreou's visit to Cyprus on 9 January which is, I am told, the first visit of a Greek Prime Minister since independence. I cannot help wondering whether its timing and purpose will help or hinder a Cyprus settlement. All of us have put our faith in the present intercommunal talks. They might lead to success—God willing, they will. We all appreciate that this debate takes place at a critical time in those talks. The Secretary-General's special representative, Hugo Gobbi, started by expressing satisfaction about the good atmosphere that prevails. Discussions began on reaching agreement on the resettlement of Varosha under United Nations auspices and on practical measures by both sides to promote good will and mutual confidence.
There is general agreement in Cyprus that a revised federal constitution is required. Fixing the northern region boundary will be a formidable problem. Above all, the Turkish community in Cyprus must be given security. As in the Middle East, security is one of the keys. However, I fear that real negotiations are not taking place, only the tabling of carefully prepared papers setting out well known, carefully prepared positions. Real negotiations will require toil, sweat and the burning of midnight oil.
The British Government have a clear duty to strain every sinew to get the talks to succeed. Of course, a settlement cannot be imposed, but propositions can be put forward that neither side would have proposed but which both sides can accept. The whole weight of world opinion can be brought to bear to achieve a settlement. We need to get the American Administration closely involved and to activate direct links with both Greece and Turkey. My conviction is that the European Community has a key role to play in the Eastern Mediterraean.
The new Secretary-General has a special knowledge of Cyprus and will want to take a close interest. It would be good to hear that one of the first ambassadors that he will see after taking up his duties on 1 January will be our own Sir Anthony Parsons, who would remind him of our deep concern for Cyprus and would discuss with him the current United Nations proposals and how they can best be advanced.
I am currently the chairman of the British-Cyprus CPA group. I assure my right hon. Friend that many right hon. and hon. Members want to know that Britain is doing everything possible to support the intercommunal talks and that she does not intend to allow Cyprus to fall by the wayside because no one is prepared to stand up for the people of Cyprus, whether Greek or Turkish Cypriots. My right hon. Friend must also be considering privately with his officials and with other countries how best to discharge

the commitment that we have arising from our association, if the talks should flounder and if Mr. Denktash again raises the cry of UDI.
That is my main message to the Government, although I have a number of minor points. First, Friends of Cyprus recently organised in London a remarkable and encouraging meeting. A mass meeting of Cypriots, both Greek and Turkish, assembled to welcome a declaration which had been made by three editors from the Greek side and three editors from the Turkish side, all calling for understanding and reconciliation. This follows other meetings of professional Greek and Turkish Cypriots. There is a danger that as the years go by the two communities will grow apart. Friends of Cyprus, as an independent organisation, is well suited to call such meetings, but the Government and their diplomats and agencies also have a part to play. How can that part be played in the future?
Secondly, I raise the vexed subject of students' fees. Cyprus has no university. In the past, many of her leaders in politics, law, industry and commerce have been educated in Britain. In the future, it looks as though Cyprus will turn elsewhere, particularly to America, which I understand recently allocated no less than $5 million for scholarships, and of course the Soviet Union. It is as plain as a pikestaff that Government policy in this area has been short-sighted and in the long run will be damaging to both Cyprus and Britain. It is not too late for wiser counsels to prevail. Let the Foreign Office contribute to those counsels.
Thirdly, the woes of those British subjects whose property was occupied in the north of Cyprus have frequently been related by hon. Members. What is the latest position with regard to compensation from Turkey for former British residents? Has the matter been resolved once and for all?
Fourthly, the sovereign bases are of considerable importance to Britain. At present, the administration of the United Nations force in Cyprus is carried out from them. They assist the local economy. There is minimum feeling against them locally. May I be assured that their future is not in question?
In conclusion, having studied the Cyprus issue for many years and having had the opportunity to meet the leading politicians on both sides of the dispute, I am convinced that a settlement that will bring peace, stability, territorial integrity and lasting independence and non-alignment can be achieved.
If there has been a thought among Greek Cypriots that a delayed settlement is likely to be a better settlement, such an attitude is tragically mistaken. Equally, it is not in the interests of either the Turkish Cypriots who live under an austere and economically unsuccessful regime, or Turkey, which stands condemned by the international community, that the present shameful state of affairs should continue.
I am not pro-Greek Cypriot or pro-Turkish Cypriot. I am simply pro-Cypriot. Although Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are very different in character and temperament, they share a love of Cyprus. The evidence of the past 100 years is that in Cyprus they can live peacefully together and the two communities complement each other. Individual shopkeepers, farmers and those who will have to share a water channel or graze the same pastures have told me of their conviction that they can live together in harmony.
In economic, industrial and agricultural terms, Cyprus must be regarded as one unit. A mountainous island of 3,572 square miles is far too small to be permanently divided. An officially partitioned Cyprus would be as lacking in stability as Palestine or Northern Ireland. Joining Cyprus to either Greece of Turkey would lead at once to a vicious and bloody war between Greece and Turkey and would be a monstrous destruction of an independent country.
I do not doubt that a long and tortuous road lies ahead. I do not doubt that more missed opportunities could condemn an island's generation to bitterness, growing hatred, despair and degradation. But neither do I doubt that a magnanimous, lasting settlement, encouraged by Britain, between these two proud and well-established communities could lead on to a fertile plateau of peace and prosperity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I remind the House that we hope to finish the debate at 11.30, and I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal will want some time to reply.

Mr. Christopher Price: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on raising this important issue, which is too seldom debated in the House. I wish to make three brief points.
First, I urge upon the Government the need to enter into a new spirit of trust with the Cypriot Government and the Cypriot people of both communities. Many fences need to be mended in this respect, not just because of the instance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when the Lord Privy Seal's predecessor visited Cyprus and used the unfortunate phrase that "invasions mean different things to different people", but also because of the Prime Minister's remark at Melbourne that Cyprus was a "territorial problem". The Cyprus problem is not a territorial one and it does no good for our relationships with the Turks or Greeks to mince words about the situation.
The Greek Prime Minister, Andreas Papandreou, both in his manifesto and since being elected, described the Cyprus problem as one of foreign occupation. That needs saying, although, as the hon. Member for Bexleyhath said, the fault for the problems of the past 20 years cannot be laid on one side. The Turks must make certain concessions, which they are not willing to do. There is a long history of appalling behaviour by Greek Cypriot and chauvinist elements and of appalling neglect of the problem by Labour and Conservative Administrations, and NATO has had a sinister influence on the problem. The present tragic division of the island conforms almost exactly to NATO plans drawn up in the 1950s for the island's partition. Some people within NATO—I do not include the secretary-general—wrongly think that the present situation is the best that can be obtained.
I urge the Lord Privy Seal to try to cement good relations with both sides. Although I pay tribute to Ambassador Gobbi and Mr. Perez de Cuellar, the new secretary-general of the United Nations, who comes to that job with tremendous knowledge, it is obviously no good for the Government simply to say that the best hope for Cyprus lies in the continuation of inter-communal talks.
A new initiative of some sort, within the United Nations, Europe or another international forum, must take

place if the problem is to be solved. That is in no way incompatible with the continuation of the talks, which are an essential engine to solve problems and to arrive at a federal solution. However, there must be far greater international pressure, particularly on Turkey, if any progress is to be made. There has been none recently.
I say in all sincerity to the Lord Privy Seal that the Eastern Mediterranean situation—between Greece and Turkey—is now much more serious than Government spokesmen in Britain or elsewhere appear to realise. The recent NATO meeting was unable to agree a communiqué stated. I support Andreas Papandreou's view that the new Greek Government will raise the whole profile of its dispute and difficulties with Turkey and involve NATO in that problem. If the British Government have any desire to maintain stability in that area, pressure to solve the Cyprus problem must be an important part of their policy, otherwise the instability within NATO will increase.
It has been assumed for years that Turkey must be mollycoddled and given vast military aid but that Greece can be taken for granted. I was in Greece before the recent elections and observed that they proved the bitter and violent anti-American feeling that took Andreas Papandreou to power. The Greeks no longer want to be treated as pawns.
The Government have granted an extra £ 1½ million subsidy to EEC students by lowering the home fee so that a Greek medical student—even though there is a perfectly good medical school in Athens—can train in Britain for £450 a year. However, a Greek Cypriot medical student, whose country does not have a university, partly because Britain insisted in the 1960 settlement that it should not have one, must pay £5,000. That is a piece of pure idiotic absurdity and one of the little pinpricks that cause unnecessary bad relationships.
The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recommended to the Government that the concessions to EEC students should be extended to the three countries that have an association with the Community—Cyprus, Malta and Turkey. That would cost £3 million or £4 million, probably no more, but it would be an enormous step in trying to show the Cypriot people that we do not want to abandon them and send them to universities in other countries, but want to demonstrate some sort of solidarity. Although I do not expect an answer from the Lord Privy Seal on that issue, I strongly urge him to convey that suggestion again to the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Jim Spicer: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on raising this topic again. Few hon. Members have a longstanding interest in and concern about Cyprus and its people and I share with him the view that we speak for all Cypriots when we discuss the problems faced by that troubled but beautiful island.
This is possibly the right time to re-examine our role. For over six years successive Governments have said that it is a matter for the Greeks and Turks in communal talks to get ahead and do something. However, we are now in a new and much more dangerous phase.
My hon. Friend said that there were about 20,000 Turkish troops on the island. That is far too many, and I have wished over the years that their numbers could be reduced dramatically. There are now reports, and I hope


that the Lord Privy Seal can confirm whether they are true, that there are also 6,000 regular Greek forces on the island. That introduces a new and dangerous factor in a situation which is explosive enough anyway.
It has been stated that we have a responsibility as a guarantor power. Considering the past seven years—particularly at the time of the intervention or invasion of Cyprus—if we had exercised our guarantor powers and done more, the present situation might not have arisen.
However, if we have a responsibility, so does the European Community. The European Community has an association with Cyprus and only last week its Parliament passed legislation about financial assistance to Cyprus. Such financial aid and common schemes must be passed through the Cypriot Government, but there is always the fear among the Turkish Cypriot community that it does not see its fair share of the money that is meant to be for all Cypriots.
May I make a positive proposal that the British Government, the European Community and all the guarantor powers should put their weight behind? We should reopen Nicosia airport, to internationalise it and to use it as a bridge between the two communities. We tend to forget the generation of Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides, but they are still there and have worked together. However, the younger generation of Turkish and Greek Cypriots has no contact. If the airport could be reopened and there could be a Turkish entry point and a Greek entry point, it would play a part in bringing the communities together, give new life to the Turkish Cypriot community in the north and make it much more likely that a final settlement would be agreed.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) was lucky in the ballot and had the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to developments in Cyprus. The comparative absence of headlines over the last seven years has tended to take the island out of the public eye, yet the suffering and the underlying tensions remain and the relative properity of the island cannot disguise the fact that, in many respects, things are becoming worse.
As the years go by, the two communities are growing apart. Voluntary efforts to bridge the gap can help and the initiatives taken recently by the British Friends of Cyprus in bringing together teachers and journalists from both sides, to which my hon. Friend referred, is a good case in point. Nevertheless, a generation is growing up in Cyprus knowing nothing of the other side. The possibility of a just and lasting solution—something we all want—which will enable the communities to live in harmony together must diminish as time goes by and they continue to live separately.
Apart from the people of Cyprus themselves, there is the problem of its geographical position. It is in an area where the world can ill afford increased tension. The problems there carry the seeds of potential confrontation between two of our NATO partners—Greece and Turkey. For that reason alone, finding a solution is a matter of deep concern to Western Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath drew attention to recent allegations of troop reinforcements on the island. The allegations have come from both sides,

who have discussed them with us. We have seen nothing to substantiate allegations of reinforcements on the scale alleged and we have told both parties so. If they were true, the stories would be deeply disturbing. As it is, they are an illustration of the potentially explosive nature of the problem. We hope that the parties will not allow the squall created by them to set back the search for a settlement.
As has already been said, Britain has special reasons to be troubled by the continued failure to find a solution in Cyprus. There is not only our residual responsibility as a guarantor power; there are the close historical and human ties that bind Britain and Cyprus. We have done, and we shall continue to do, all we can to promote the well-being of Cyprus by trying to improve its terms of association with the EEC. Our largest commitment to United Nations peacekeeping is, quite rightly, in Cyprus. We are the biggest contributors of both men and money to the United Nations force on the island. That is tangible evidence of our concern, as is the support that we provide for the sovereign base areas. I believe that the House will wish to join me in taking this opportunity to applaud the vital contribution of British soldiers and airmen in helping to keep the threatening situation under control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath raised two particular points, and two others were raised by other hon. Gentlemen. There is the question of student fees, raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Christopher Price) and by my hon. Friend. This is not the moment to go into the detail about the history of student fees, which in any case is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We have the problem in mind and are looking at ways in which it might be possible to relieve the impact, at least upon selected students.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) suggested that a move forward would be to reopen Nicosia airport. I agree, and the principle that it should be opened for the benefit of both communities is a good one. It was discussed at an earlier stage of the inter-communal talks but it has been put on one side for the moment, pending an overall settlement. Again, it must be a matter for the parties to decide but it is something that would be worth re-examining to see whether benefit would flow and a start could be made on reducing tension. I am grateful to him for his suggestion.
With regard to the question of compensation for British property owners, we remain in close contact with the Turkish authorities. About 150 claims have so far been settled, and we are renewing the pressure for an early settlement of the remainder of the claims
I was speaking a moment ago about peacekeeping. The United Nations can help to maintain a minimum stability but its peacekeeping efforts do not bring a settlement any nearer. Since 1974, the search for a settlement has been pitifully slow, but the last few months have seen several more encouraging developments, and reference has been made to some of them. I think there is a glimmer of hope. There is a chance that what is needed—negotiation between parties—will get under way.
As the House will remember, in September last year inter-communal talks, under the auspices of the United Nations secretary-general, resumed in Nicosia. The atmosphere, for the most part, has been good. In April, the United Nations announced agreement on the establishment of an inter-communal committee, with Red Cross participation, to carry out investigations into the


humanitarian problem of missing persons. Its work has been delayed by tiresome procedural wranglings. I understand that the Red Cross representative has now made proposals to break the deadlock, and I hope that the inter-communal committee will be able to move forward.
As I said, progress has been slow over many years, but in August and September this year the two sides came forward with new proposals. For the first time, both sides had on the table concrete territorial proposals—however far apart they might be—as well as suggestions for a constitutional settlement. On 18 November they accepted the tabling of a United Nations paper, the "Evaluation", designed to bridge the gap between the two sides and, in the secretary-general's words, to lend "structure and substance" to the negotiating process.
As recently as 21 December, the Turkish Prime Minister said that the inter-communal talks had
taken a meaningful and substantive course
and that the Turkish Government would continue to support the negotiating process. Our recent contacts with the parties in Cyprus have shown appreciation that the talks have gone further than any previous such dialogue, and there is a willingness among the parties to build on this.
A great deal of the credit for the progress of recent months is due to Dr. Waldheim, the secretary-general of the United Nations, and his personal representative, Ambassador Gobbi. They are to be thanked for the untiring persistence with which they have sought to give momentum to this process.
Dr. Waldheim's successor, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, has long experience of Cyprus, having held for a time Mr. Gobbi's present post in Nicosia. He had a hand in laying the foundations for the present initiative and will, I am sure, pursue it with the same determination as his predecessor. We shall be taking the earliest opportunity, when he takes office at the beginning of July, to make clear to him our views on Cyprus and to stress the need to maintain progress in the talks.
There are those—the hon. Member for Lewisham, West was one of them—who urge a more obvious British or European role, or some sort of special initiative. I sympathise with the concern and the sense of responsibility underlying such suggestions. I assure the House that we are as keen as anyone else to give whatever

constructive help we can, but at this stage it is our view that the most constructive thing we can do is to give our full support to the United Nations in its search for a settlement.
We stand ready to do anything more that the United Nations would consider useful, but there are constraints, and the adoption of positions which are clearly partial would undermine our capacity to help. It is particularly important, at this delicate stage, to do nothing which might cross the United Nations' efforts or diminish their credibility.
I remind the House that there has been no call from any of those directly involved for any sort of Western initiative. Indeed, hon. Members will recall the fate of the 1978 United Kingdom-United States-Canadian initiative, which was rejected. All the evidence suggests that outside attempts to intervene directly or to pressurise the parties will not succeed.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the present process will fail. That is a gloomy view to take and I do not think that they are justified in taking it at the moment. Prime Minister Papandreou and President Kyprianou agreed, at a press conference on 11 December, that they could show "restrained optimism" about the prospects. It is not our business to write off the present process at this stage. Of course, we must think about what we would do if there were a breakdown, but we are still a long way from that point.
The two sides, along with the United Nations, are considering how best to carry the process forward and to make use of the ideas advanced by the secretary-general. The inter-communal talks will resume after Christmas, and I hope that a substantive negotiation will begin then.
At a meeting that I attended on Monday with the British Parliamentary Cyprus Group, one member with deep experience of Cyprus strongly argued that this problem is not insoluble. I believe that he is right, but progress towards a settlement will ultimately depend on the flexibility, moderation and will of the parties. I do not believe that the advances of the next few months give us any cause for complacency, because momentum once gained can quickly be lost. The present opportunity is there and should be exploited. If it is not exploited, it may not recur again for a long time. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to do everything they can to help and encourage everyone concerned in the search for a settlement to this difficult problem.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Derek Foster: When the Minister is sitting comfortably, I shall tell the House the horror story of the ex-employees of Chamberlain Phipps, 43 of whom were sacked for taking a day's industrial action. They have been described as the wallpaper warriors of Bishop Auckland.
On 23 September, after protracted negotiations, a new package of wages and bonus was proposed, and the men judged that they would be £10 to £15 a week worse off. Unfortunately, that package was accepted by the general secretary of their trade union, the National Union of Footwear Leather and Allied Trades, although he had no authority to do so. Subsequently, the deal was rejected three times by ballot.
The men decided that they would adopt a series of one-day token strikes. Upon doing so, they received a letter from their employer. It has become fashionable for employers to send threatening letters to their employees. The letter was similar in style to the notorious letter that Michael Edwardes wrote to the British Leyland employees, and it was equally threatening. I have it with me, but I do not intend to read it all out.
The nub of the letter was contained in the paragraph:
Those NUFLAT members who take part in the unofficial strike action on Wednesday 23 September will be dismissed, and under no circumstances will they be re-engaged or reinstated".
At 7 o'clock the next morning the shop steward persuaded the early shift to withdraw its labour. Remarkably, the shop steward was not on the early shift. He subsequently went into work at 3 o'clock and left the men abandoned outside on the picket line. He has never been deemed by the company to have taken industrial action.
The next day, when the men presented themselves for work, they found themselves locked out, and on that same day they received their final pay slips and P45s. I should stress that this was the first day's strike in the company's eight-year history in the area. Some of the sacked men were described by the managing director at a personal meeting with me as model employees who had never given a moment's trouble. He expressed considerable sympathy for some of them and said that he would like to be able to take some of them back.
There can be one of three explanations why this extraordinary event took place. First, perhaps the company thought that it could get rid of a few so-called trouble-makers—those who had rightly insisted on the implementation of health and safety regulations in the factory. The second possible explanation is that the negotiation was completely mishandled by both the company and the trade union. The third is that the company wanted to reduce its work force without having to pay redundancy money.
Whatever the explanation, the innocent people who suffered were the workers who decided to take industrial action. The company had been advised that either it had to take back all its ex-employees, or none, because if it took one back the rest could sue for unfair dismissal and were likely to win. The company did not want to take all the employees back, first, because it did not need them all and, secondly, because there were some whom it was glad to get rid of.
The men were disqualified from claiming unemployment benefit, even though they had been sacked and had

received their P45s and dismissal notices. Not only that, but because of the recent Tory Social Security Act their dependants' supplementary benefit was reduced by £12 a week on the assumption that the men would receive strike pay from NUFLAT, even though everyone—the union, the company and the Department of Employment—knew full well that the men would not be receiving it.
The men were disqualified from claiming benefit because they were deemed to be in dispute. That decision was taken by the regional inspector of insurance at the Department of Employment, who explained to me that in cases such as this he had to take account of two criteria. The first was whether the men had lost their jobs because of an industrial dispute. Clearly, the answer to that was "Yes". The second was whether an equivalent number of workers have been recruited by the company. In this case the answer was "No". Twenty new people had been taken on, but 43 had been dismissed.
That is where confusion arose, because it subsequently emerged that the second criterion was not as clear-cut as that. A more appropriate consideration might have been "Had normal production been resumed?" This is where we need some clarification about the criteria that are applied in these circumstances.
Had an equivalent number of people been recruited, this so-called dispute would have gone on indefinitely and the men, who along with their families were suffering great hardship, could have been disqualified from claiming benefit indefinitely. I therefore hope that the Minister will clarify the confusion about the criteria that are applicable in this case.
There is to be a second appeal hearing in Darlington on 14 January, and this will be a material question to be considered by the panel. I understand that the criterion to be taken into account is whether work is back to normal when market demand is being met. If that is the case, the men were sacked and should have qualified for benefit on the date on which they were sacked. It has not been a case of unfulfilled orders. That is clear.
I shall say a word now about the hardship that the men and their families have had to suffer. The men were shocked and demoralised by their experience. It was not something that they had expected. One man, with six children, received only £22 for more than one week. Another man, who had a wife, received only £9 for three weeks. They were faced with bills for rent, gas, electricity and food which they could not pay. My telephone was red hot with distress calls from the men and their families. It was clear that they had been sacked. They had received their P45s. The company had told ACAS that it had no intention of re-engaging the men. Indeed, it was prepared to write to the Department of Employment to that effect. Nevertheless, those men were still deemed to be in dispute.
There is one remarkable aspect of this case. If we are to believe the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, and most Tory Back Benchers, this country has the strongest trade unions in the world. It is believed that trade unions have brought Governments to their knees. The present Secretary of State for Employment is determined to saw off the trade unions at their knees. Nevertheless, in this country, which has reputedly the strongest trade unions in the world, a company can get away with sacking 43 people for taking one day's industrial action.
This case has been taken as a warning to every employee and trade unionist in the North-East of what can


happen. It is indicative, too, of the new realism—we have heard about the new realism on the shop floor—among managers, which seems to be sweeping through the country. Certain managers feel that they can ride roughshod over employees and get away with it, and it appears that they can. I warn the Minister that if they do, those managers will reap a bitter harvest of confrontation when the upturn comes, if it ever does.
I talked earlier about the effects on the men. At first they were demoralised and browbeaten. When they picked themselves up, they became angry and frustrated at what they regarded as the company's despicable treatment, at their trade union's weakness, and at the incredible harshness of the social security legislation. They became determined to fight for their own dignity against injustice and to fight for their families. From being demoralised, they became radicalised.
Previously, the men had been moderate to the point of compliance, but they have been greatly radicalised by their experience. It is a warning to the Government, who are determined to push through anti-trade union legislation. If the net result is to radicalise moderate people, the Government will reap a bitter harvest. Those men have manned the picket line ever since, even in the severely cold weather. They joined many thousands of Labour Party people on the "Back to Jarrow" march and were proud to do so. They held the first march through Bishop Auckland since 1935, led etc. etc. Roland Boyes. Auckland since 1935 led by myself and the European MP Roland Boyes. Two of them walked the 288 miles from Bishop Auckland to Westminster, where they were greeted by the Leader of the Opposition and many Front Bench
Their story has reverberated throughout the North-East, alerting trade unionists to the dangers and giving new heart to thousands of people who felt that they were in danger of losing their jobs. I am proud to represent those men and their families. Now they have a new sense of confidence, and because of their experience they are ready to take on almost the world.
I am glad to know that the men have now received their unemployment benefit, but what about their back unemployment benefit? They were sacked on 24 September, and for four weeks they were disqualified from benefit. That amounts to about £200 for the men and their families. It would be a good Christmas present for them if the Minister could tell us today that they will receive that back unemployment benefit.
What about their jobs? In an area where 25 per cent. of the men are out of work, and where a quarter of the unemployed have been unemployed for well over a year, these men have little prospect of getting a job. They are completely fed up with being unemployed and are desperate to get work. I hope that the Minister will intervene and encourage the company to reinstate those people, although, in view of the conference speech by the Secretary of State for unemployment, all that he may deign to do is to set up a bag factory, perhaps, in my constituency. A magic carpet factory might be more appropriate, because the only place where my people will get work at the moment is in the Far East.
These men have felt the full brunt of the harsh and heartless management that is applauded by the Tory Party. They have been browbeaten by the crushing social security

legislation that has been enacted by this Tory Government. Now they march for the return of a Labour Government, and that is what they dearly hope for.
I want to ask the Minister four questions. Will he undertake to arrange for their back benefits to be given to them? Will he undertake to intervene in an effort to persuade the company to give these men their jobs back? Will he undertake to bring forward changes in the legislation to make impossible summary sackings of this nature, when people have taken one day's industrial action in the eight years of the company's history? Will he give an undertaking that the criteria applied by the regional insurance officer in deciding whether workers are in dispute will be clarified? If the Minister can give those undertakings, I and the whole House can adjourn with some peace in our minds at this time of peace and good will.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I think that it will be best if I comment on the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) by saying first what the law is and how it works, and, secondly, what has happened in the case of Chamberlain Phipps Coatings Ltd.
The intention of the law is quite simple: that people who go on strike should not qualify for unemployment benefit. That benefit is one of the wide range of national insurance benefits to which the general principles of insurance apply. People whose own deliberate actions result in a claim find that their claim is turned down. For instance, in a parallel case, arsonists cannot collect on their fire policies if they deliberately start fires. Similarly, strikers cannot collect on their unemployment insurance. This principle has been fundamental to national insurance law from its inception and has applied throughout the terms of office of successive Governments, and not just that of the wicked Tories, as the hon. Member seemed to imply.
The application of this principle to strikers claiming unemployment benefit is set out in section 19 of the Social Security Act 1975. This says that people who lose their jobs because of a stoppage of work at their place of employment which is due to a trade dispute in which they are participating or in which they have a direct interest shall be disqualified from benefit. This disqualification lasts for as long as the stoppage of work due to the strike continues. The law is concerned not with the merits of the dispute but merely that its existence has caused a stoppage of work.
The law does not define when a stoppage ends. The circumstances surrounding the ending of a trade dispute and the associated stoppage of work caused by it can be infinitely varied in the possible permutations and mutations which can arise. Over the years, however, a body of case law has developed. This enables a sensible decision to be made about when a stoppage is over and when, as a result, benefit can be paid.
That is the law in the theoretical framework, but it might be helpful if I outlined how it is generally applied. When a striker makes a claim to benefit, any possible payment of that claim is held in abeyance from the start in the case of the striker applying. I must emphasise that this action is purely an administrative act to withhold benefit from someone who may not be entitled to it. Should the decision on the claim be favourable, payment


is fully backdated. I should add that arrears payable can be payable only in respect of a period of entitlement. That is a technicality. I understand that the insurance officer has decided that benefit is payable in this case from Monday 26 October, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland confirmed that.
Decisions on whether someone is entitled to benefit are taken by the independent adjudicating authorities and, because of their independence, neither I nor any other Minister nor any official can influence their decisions. I am afraid that this must bear upon the hon. Gentleman's request to give a number of undertakings. There are whole areas here in which I have no jurisdiction.
The independence which the adjudicating authorities enjoy is an important principle. It ensures that the law passed in this House is administered by a body which cannot be influenced by what may or may not be convenient for Ministers and officials. There are similarities with the administration of the law in general and its independent judiciary.
There are three tiers to the adjudicating authorities. The first stage is the insurance officer who makes the initial decision on whether benefit should be disallowed and, if appropriate, when the disqualification in question should end. The insurance officer's decision can be subject to appeal to the second stage of the adjudicating process, the local tribunal. In similar fashion, the decision of the local tribunal can be subject to appeal to the final stage of the process, which is the social security commissioner. All are independent of the Ministers and their officials. It is the decisions of the social security commissioner which form the case law to which I referred earlier about when a dispute can be judged to have ended.
It is important to spell out in some detail these rights of appeal. People who make claims to unemployment benefit and who are disqualified from it by the insurance officer have an automatic right of appeal to the local tribunal within 28 days of being notified of the decision of the insurance officer. If they fail to meet that deadline, they can still ask the chairman of the local tribunal for leave to appeal out of time.
If on appeal the decision of the local tribunal is unfavourable to the claimant but the three tribunal members are not unanimous in their view, the claimant again has an automatic right of further appeal to the social security commissioner. Such an appeal must in turn be made within three months of the claimant being notified of the tribunal's decision.
If the decision of the local tribunal is unfavourable to the claimant but is unanimous, slightly different rules apply. Despite the unanimity of the decision, the claimant may be given leave to appeal to the commissioner by the tribunal chairman at the hearing. If the tribunal chairman does not give such leave, the claimant may seek specific leave to appeal from the tribunal chairman. If the claimant decides to do that, he has 28 days in which to do it from the date on which he was notified of the tribunal decision. If on application the tribunal chairman gives him leave, again he has three months in which to make his appeal to the commissioner.
Should the tribunal chairman refuse leave to appeal, the claimant may ask the social security commissioner himself for leave to appeal to him. This right must be exercised within six weeks of his being notified that the tribunal

chairman earlier has turned down his leave to appeal. If the commissioner grants leave to appeal, once again the claimant has three months in which to make the appeal.
All levels of the adjudicating authorities are most careful to ensure that they have sufficient information—as much as necessary and as much as possible—before coming to a decision. They direct my Department's officials in collecting whatever information is needed for adjudication purposes, so they have an initiative in saying what they need to know and the dates that they need to have. In trade dispute cases, they can obtain written information from both parties to a dispute, and at local tribunal hearings and those of the social security commissioner both the insurance officer and the claimant can present their arguments orally and may call witnesses to support them. They can also comment on the evidence given by the other side.
From what I have just said, it will be fairly clear that the rights of claimants are well safeguarded, both in working their way through the appeals process and in being able to put their side of the case.

Mr. Foster: Does the Minister accept that these processes can occupy a considerable time and that it is likely that there will be lengthy delays in paying any money subsequently adjudged to be due to claimants? A great deal of hardship may result.

Mr. Alison: There is a dilemma here. As much time as possible must be allowed to enable a claimant to present his case, get evidence and discover what are the rules of the game. This may have the effect of extending the time during which benefit is not paid, but the backdating principle applies, so that in the end no one is more than very marginally disadvantaged by the time lapse, on the assumption that the appeal is successful.
I come to the specific case of Chamberlain Phipps Coatings Ltd. The firm had agreed a new wages and productivity agreement with the recognised trade union, the National Union of Footwear, Leather and Allied Trades. However, a number of workers were dissatisfied with the new agreement and threatened to carry out a series of one-day strikes starting on 23 September. On 22 September, the firm's management warned the dissatisfied workers that their action was not supported by the union and that anyone who struck on 23 September would be dismissed, presumably for being in breach of contract.
In the event, about 40 workers carried out their threat to strike on 23 September and were dismissed as a result. When these workers came to make their claims to benefit, they agreed that one claim should be selected as a test case. The claim was duly referred to the insurance officer, who decided that the workers were disqualified from benefit as the stoppage of work was due to the strike. It is important to remember that the question whether the workers were on strike or were dismissed was immaterial. The essential fact for the insurance officer was that there was a trade dispute, and that, as a result, there was a stoppage of work affecting the 40 workers. Unemployment was not therefore involuntary, but was the result of a deliberate decision to strike.
However, as I have said, the decision of the insurance officer can be subject to appeal to a local tribunal. An appeal against the disqualification from benefit was heard on 3 December at Darlington local tribunal. This appeal was adjourned until 14 January to enable the NUFLAT


representative to provide further evidence. The present position is therefore that the insurance officer has disqualified the strikers from benefit from 23 September, but he has also decided that the firm was back to normal working from 26 October—the date we referred to. Therefore, benefit was payable and has been paid from that date.
I have been asked what normal working, and a return to it, mean. Interpretation is the job of the adjudicating authorities who, as I have already said, are independent. They, therefore, do not respond to anyone's intervention. However, case law has built up—in the gift, as it were, of the social security commissioner—which defines the resumption of normal working in terms of what is to be the normal pattern for the future, rather than what was the normal pattern in the past. Once the insurance officer is satisfied that the firm is back on a settled pattern of working which should continue for some time, he may decide that normal working has been resumed.
Chamberlain Phipps has traditionally worked a three-shift system, but after 23 September it was forced to operate only two shifts. I understand that, between 23 September and Monday 26 October, 20 or so new workers were recruited and that from 26 October the three-shift system was restarted. Benefit is therefore payable from 26 October and the local office have paid the 40 people concerned. The only question remaining on benefit entitlement is that before the local tribunal—should the strikers get benefit for the intervening period from 23 September, when the trade dispute started, to 26 October, when normal working was resumed?
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland suggested that the company's dismissal of the workers in the circumstances that I have described was unfair and that by restricting its bonus scheme in a way which allegedly led to a wage cut of £10 per week per individual the company

contrived a situation in which it could get rid of its existing experienced workers, replacing them by a smaller number of unemployed men prepared to work for lower wages, without having to make redundancy payments or face unfair dismissal claims.
The law relating to dismissal during a strike or other industrial action reflects the policy of successive Governments, that such dismissals need special treatment, both because an employer ought to have some rights to dismiss those who take industrial action against him and who are in breach of contract and because industrial tribunals should not be called on to determine the merits of industrial disputes as distinct from individual complaints of unfair dismissal. There is a distinction to be drawn. Section 62 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 precludes industrial tribunals from hearing unfair dismissal complaints provided that an employer dismisses all employees taking part in the strike or other industral action.
On the issue of redundancy pay, where an employer considers the employees' conduct to be a breach of contract—which, I understand, is the case—he can dismiss the employees with or without notice and deny their right to a statutory redundancy payment under section 82(2) of the Act. In this case, the employees had been given notice. Any employee who is denied a redundancy payment in such circumstances has the right under section 91 of the Act to apply to an industrial tribunal to have his entitlement determined.
I understand that a number of the dismissed workers from Chamberlain Phipps have now complained to the industrial tribunal that they were "constructively" unfairly dismissed, in that the company allegedly forced a wage cut on them. The matter is now sub judice and the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment further on these aspects of the case. That must be my last word on whether redundancy payments should be made.

Vacuum Cleaners (Imports)

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having granted me this debate at such a late stage. I am also grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who is to reply to the debate. The issue is vitally important, not only to me and my constituents but to other hon. Members and, notably, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Indeed, I am pleased to see him in the Chamber, and I think that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) would have liked to have been here to discuss what is, to all of us, an important subject that requires an urgent remedy.
Only two weeks ago my constituency was pleased to welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. He visited the Electrolux company, which is directly involved in this matter. The number of vacuum cleaners and other electrical appliances imported into Britain has grown to such a proportion that jobs in my constituency and other constituencies are being lost. The European Commission has taken no action. The problem is not confined to vacuum cleaners. Many other electrical appliances, such as steam irons and food mixers, are flooding the market.
The matter was brought to my attention some time ago, but was brought home to me on 22 May 1981, when Electrolux declared 330 redundancies. The managing director said that those redundancies had been caused by the recession—which is understandable—and by the very high level of cheap imports. The company is holding its head above water fairly well, but there is no doubt that its future depends on the future level of imports of vacuum cleaners, mainly from Eastern Europe. Therefore, I am glad to have this opportunity to draw the problem to the attention of the House.
From an answer that my hon. and learned Friend gave me on 16 November, he will know that the level of imported vacuum cleaners in September this year was 104,522. Not all of those goods came from Eastern Europe and the general public would not consider all of them vacuum cleaners. Some are car cleaners and others are toys. However, of that figure it is estimated that 8,000 came from Eastern Europe. Therefore, about 100,000 cleaners came into the country. Indeed, the figure could be higher. That was the figure in 1980. Figures are not as readily to hand as they might have been, because of the Civil Service dispute. However, I regret to say that that figure is expected to increase. Those 100,000 vacuum cleaners could have been manufactured and sold in Britain.
The imported goods are often half the price of equivalent British-manufactured goods, but are of inferior quality. They meet safety standards, but there is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of many in the industry that the machines are being dumped on the English market purely in order to gain sterling. I appreciate that, given the present problems in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland—where many of the cleaners come from—we

should tread somewhat carefully. However, we have first-hand evidence that vacuum cleaners are among the many things that cannot be bought in Poland. Many of them are being dumped in Britain just to gain sterling.
The Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances made representations to the Department. As long ago as November 1980, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) informed me that the case had gone before the European Commission as being one of blatant dumping. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the amount of work that he did. However, that is more than 12 months ago. While evidence has been collated from various manufacturers, both at home and abroad, cheap imports have continued to flood into the country.
I must question a system whereby a blatant case of dumping is reported to the Commission and nothing can be done until the Commission reports. We are still awaiting that report 13 months later. I urge my hon. arid learned Friend to make strong representations to the European Commission. The long delay in bureaucratic decision making is costing my constituents their livelihoods and certainly removing profitability from an important company. It is sad that we are fighting the recession with one hand tied behind our backs. I cannot say too strongly that the delay is causing great distress in my constituency and elsewhere.
It is ironic that Sweden, which is outside the EEC, is now beginning to complain about a flood of cheap Eastern European goods. Sweden is the home of Electrolux. The problem is not confined to EEC countries.
I applaud the decision in April 1981 to pass the Trade Descriptions (Origin Marking) (Miscellaneous Goods) Order. It comes into operation on 1 January. Most of the cheap imported vacuum cleaners are being sold through mail order catalogues, which are an easy and convenient retail outlet. As the House knows, under the order goods sold in shops must have a display card showing their country of origin and the appliance must contain the information.
The anomaly—my hon. and learned Friend will remember the strong representation that was made in the House against the order—is that mail order catalogues are exempt. That includes textiles as well as electrical goods. I know that the clothing industry has made its objections. The anomaly allows cheap imports to enter Britain. In many cases they are described with English-sounding names. It is almost a case of deception. The housewife who buys the goods has no idea of their country of origin. She is able, having seen the country of origin, to return them, but the House will know that anyone who receives such a large package is unlikely ever to send it hack. It is a terrible crime that mail order catalogue operators are not obliged to put the country of origin in their catalogues where everyone can see it.
I understand the Department's concern that mail order catalogues are printed well in advance of the goods being sold. I also understand that the country of origin of the goods may vary. For example, many Polish machines are made using components parts from Italy. The parentage of some goods may be doubtful, but the anomaly can be overcome if the words "foreign made" are inserted in the catalogues. With the large amount of goods sold through


that medium, it is important that the order is changed to allow either the words "foreign made" or the country of origin to be stated in the catalogue.
In conclusion—I wish to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North to speak briefly—I ask the Minister to do two things. The first is to make the swiftest representation to the European Commission asking it to hasten its judgment on cheap imported vacuum cleaners from Eastern Europe. He must make the strongest representation. Jobs are being lost because of those cheap vacuum cleaners and we cannot allow the matter to continue.
Secondly, the Minister must give urgent consideration to the origin marking order, which is essentially a first class document that is much needed in the retail trade. The Minister must reconsider the exemption for mail order catalogues, because that is the easiest medium for cheap imported goods to Britain. My hon. and learned Friend must take those steps as soon as possible.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he cannot speak twice in the debate. If he speaks on this subject, he forfeits that right to speak on the subject that he has tabled.

Mr. Greenway: Does that mean that I shall lose my debate on the future of adult education?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak twice. If he speaks now, he is speaking on the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Greenway: Is there any other intervention that I may be allowed to make?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) has finished his speech, as I understand it. The hon. Gentleman may intervene during the Minister's speech.

Mr. Carlisle: I did not wish to mislead you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, into believing that I had finished my speech I have one last thing to say.

Mr. Greenway: Before the hon. Gentleman reaches his ultimate point, I wish to say that I support him most strongly in his objection to the import of cheap electrical goods from Eastern Europe. I note that in 1978, 80,000 units were imported. In 1979, the figure was 110,000 units and in 1980 it was 152,000 units.
The firm of Hoover Ltd. at Perivale in my constituency has made strong representations to the EEC for action in the matter. On 29 July 1980 a delegation, which included representatives of Hoover Ltd., met the Minister. The factory was visited on 24 October 1980 by a representative of the EEC, to which a complaint had been submitted. Finally, in August of this year, the EEC said that some action against the dumping might be taken, but nothing is likely to happen for 12 months. Meanwhile, 1,100 jobs have been lost at Hoover Ltd. at Perivale. I am anxious to save the remaining secretarial jobs, which also go if the industry is submerged by the process to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He emphasises the strength of feeling throughout the House and of those right hon. and hon. Members who represent the constituencies affected.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Peter Rees): My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) has deployed a powerful case on a subject of great importance not only to himself but to other hon. Members. The House will agree that his contribution was embellished by the brief but telling intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Both of my hon. Friends have a long, consistent and honourable record of concern about such matters. I know that the great company Electrolux operates in the constituency of Luton, West and Hoover Ltd. in Ealing, North. We share their concern about the impact of the present situation in those companies on employment in their constituencies. I do not underestimate the gravity of the problem.
However, I attempt at the outset to set the problem in some sort of perspective, not that I dissent from the statistics given. We are handicapped, because figures only for five months are presently available. However, for 1981, taking that limited sample, the monthly average number of cleaners imported from all countries was 61,000 compared with 69,000 in 1980. Imports from East European countries have also dropped from a monthly average of 10,600 in 1980 to about 8,000 for the first five months of 1981. That does not minimise the problem, but as we are debating such an important subject we must get the facts right.
Unfortunately, the import statistics do not distinguish between cylinder and upright cleaners, and I am sure that the House is well aware of the significance of that. It has been established that all East European imports are of the cylinder type. The breakdown of imports between those from EEC countries and elsewhere show that European Community member States accounted for 56 per cent. of cylinder and upright imports in 1981 while the East European cylinder models accounted for 13 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West rightly said, some of the figures that have been bandied about in the press have included toy vacuum cleaners from Hong Kong, which does not present a realistic picture.
In 1980 vacuum cleaner sales in the United Kingdom were about 2 million units. Of those, about 61 percent. were accounted for by home-produced cleaners and 39 per cent. by imported cleaners. Therefore, it is not a question of home producers being entirely edged out of the market. They still have a solid share. However, I recognise that 39 per cent. is a considerable import penetration and we must consider the effect of that on our producers and on jobs in Britain.
During 1980 exports by British companies amounted to 848,000 cleaners, which is slightly more than the total imports. That is an encouraging factor, although I agree that it does not wholly mitigate the problem that my hon. Friend so eloquently presented. However, that occurred during a period when the United Kingdom market was contracting and, as a result, total penetration of the market by imports could be said to be increasing.
The Government are firmly committed to a policy of free trade, provided that it is on a basis—

Mr. Greenway: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the subject of imports, will he tell us whether he is aware that France and several other EEC countries have


taken temporary action to stop the import of cheap electrical goods from Eastern Europe? My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) and I believe that such imports have broken the camel's back at Hoover in Perivale. Other countries have taken action pending a permanent solution. Is it not possible for the Government to take similar action?

Mr. Rees: I do not know whether it would be right for me to discuss the details of the French situation since it is not entirely comparable with ours. I shall come to the subject of anti-dumping in a moment, as I know it is of great importance.
The Government are firmly committed to a policy of free trade. In 1980 Britain exported goods all over the world worth £50,000 million. Therefore, we must be concerned about an open trade policy. Any attempt to prevent the importation of fairly priced goods could have severe retaliatory results for our successful exporters of vacuum cleaners and also in other industrial sectors. We must all remember that general principle. However, both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have constantly said that we are wholly opposed to all forms of unfair trade. The assumption is often made that goods that are cheap by British or Community standards are, therefore, unfairly priced. That is not necessarily so, although I am not prejudging the issue in the case under discussion.
One area in which there is great sensitivity is that of dumping. That occurs only when goods are sold on export markets at less than their normal value, which is less than the true cost of manufacture in the country of origin. When State trading countries are involved it is difficult to arrive at the true facts. There is usually no reliable information available on what constitutes a true domestic price and comparison is, therefore, difficult to make with similar products in a comparable market economy country.
The burden of complaints put forward by both my hon. Friends is that anti-dumping action has not been taken fast enough and has not been effective. It was explicit in their speeches that the final measures are now the prerogative of the EEC Commission. Indeed, the Community anti- dumping regulation is closely modelled on the GATT code. It was revised during the Tokyo round. Notwithstanding that the ultimate responsibility lies with the Commission, my Department has retained an anti- dumping unit to assist British industry in the preparation and presentation of cases to the Commission. I hope that hon. Members will not feel that the procedure is too complex. An information pack on anti-dumping is readily available to British manufacturers. About 4,000 copies have already been distributed, which shows that there is a good take-up. The unit in my Department is available to assist wherever possible.
Concern about cylinder cleaner imports from Eastern Europe was first expressed in 1980 at a meeting of the sector working party for the domestic electrical appliance industry. It is difficult to mount an effective anti-dumping case unless we have all the true facts. We cannot do it simply on a hunch or a prejudice. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friends or the great companies represented in their constituencies want to do that, but we must produce firm facts. It has been difficult to find the correct analogue.
I wish to pay tribute to the assistance given by the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances—AMDEA—which played a great part in airing the problem. The facts have now emerged. I wish

to pay tribute also to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West. He met my predecessor, together with the managing director of the Electrolux company in his constituency, and he earnestly deployed the facts. The facts have finally been elucidated and presented to the Commission, which is now satisfied that a prima facie case has been assembled. It announced the opening of a proper investigation on 25 September. Since then, it has conducted detailed inquiries, especially with three United Kingdom manufacturers, including the firm in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Commission has all the hard evidence that it requires. I hope that some conclusion will be reached early in the new year, which is only weeks away.
We can consider whether there is any way in which we can speed up the procedures, but against the background of the procedures agreed during the Tokyo round. A case cannot be levelled at my Department or at the Commission. We constantly consider whether improvements can be made as dumping is of continuing concern both for us and for the EEC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West raised the question of origin marking. The new origin marking order will come into effect on 1 January. It is a little premature to prejudge its operation. We must wait and see how it works. The matter was debated at length in Committee. It does not apply to mail order catalogues. However, the catalogues will have to contain two safeguards. First, there must be a clear statement that the goods will be origin marked when they are supplied to the customer. The customer will be under no obligation to buy after delivery if the goods are returned undamaged within a specified period. I appreciate that no one wants to return something that he has had through the post, which sometimes involves hassle and worry. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs has explained that we must strike a balance between the legitimate interests of catalogue traders and those of consumers.
There are practical difficulties. There is a long lead time between the production of catalogues and their publication. There would be problems if catalogue traders had to mark in advance the country of origin. The products have to be marked, but I appreciate that for those who order through a catalogue it may be difficult to determine the country of origin in advance.
My hon. Friend referred to counterfeiting. There are firm measures that can be invoked to counter that activity.
We do not underestimate the dimension of the problem and the impact that it has had in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members that have similar factories within them. I hope that it will not be felt that there has been any lack of concern in my Department. We are always ready to consider whether we can press for the sharpening of procedures in Brussels and we shall do so whenever possible. As for origin marking, I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that it is right to assess how the order works in practice. Our minds are not closed. If, with experience, we feel that the order can be improved, we shall do what is required.
I recognise that this is an important issue. The case against dumping has been advanced most eloquently and succinctly by my hon. Friends. I hope that adequate justice has been done to it, even though the time available has been rather short.

Mr. Brian Aitken and Curator Bonis

Mr. William Hamilton: The story that I wish to tell has deeply shocked and angered everybody to whom it has been told, not least the press in Scotland, especially the Sunday Mail, and Ministers of the Crown in the Scottish Office. I shall put on record the basic facts.
In 1977 Brian Aitken suffered severe head and leg injuries in a car crash in Inverness-shire. As a result, he is at 27 years of age a permanent cripple physically and mentally. He was awarded £75,000 compensation and that is where the trouble started.
Brian lives with his parents in a council flat at 95, Small Street, Lochgelly, Fife, where he is looked after by his parents through the week. He is taken into hospital, mainly for weekends, at Lynebank hospital.
In early November of this year I visited Mr. and Mrs. Aitken at their request. They supplied me with details of how the £75,000 in compensation was being administered on their son's behalf. As they unfolded the story I could hardly believe my ears.
The family income is £60·95 weekly, consisting of £47 unemployment benefit, £5·45 in invalidity allowance and £8·50 in attendance allowance. The parents are responsible respectable middle-aged people who are anxious to do their best for their son, but they had not counted on the law. The law in these cases is proving to be a cruel, heartless and stupid ass. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr Rifkind), explained to me in a letter dated 25 November, the laws under which such cases are treated are the judicial factors Acts of 1880 and 1889, subsequently amended by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980.
Under these Acts trustees called curators bonis are appointed to manage estates such as that of Brian Aitken's for his, Brian's, benefit and to make all administrative decisions subject to the overall supervision of the accountant of court, to whom must be given an account of all moneys paid into or out of the estate.
I understand the need to protect such estates in the interests of beneficiaries against possible abuse by parents, other relatives or friends, but I ask the House to consider what has happened in Brian Aitken's case.
The curator bonis is an employee of a firm of chartered accountants of Glenrothes called Mr. John Christie. The Aitkens' family solicitor is a Mr. Simpson of Kirkcaldy.
Brian's parents wanted to do several things in the interest of their son. They wanted to employ a housekeeper for the four days per fortnight when Brian is at home to help with washing, cleaning and generally assisting the family to look after the boy. They wanted to instal central heating in their flat because a young man such as Brian needs more heat than most people. They wanted to replace their present motor car, which is leased and paid for with the mobility allowance, and they wished to buy their flat from the council so that if anything happened to them Brian would have a roof over his head. Fifthly, when Brian is in hospital, which is eight miles away in Dunfermline, it costs Mrs. Aitken £1·12 for a return journey by bus, or £5·60 a week. She often takes fruit and sweets into the hospital for Brian as well as renewing clothes and shoes. It is a normal case of parents caring for a handicapped child.
Most of the parents' requests were set out in a letter that was sent to the trustee by the Aitkens' solicitor on 17 September. The reply from the trustee is dated 22 September. This correspondence took place in the context of an award of £75,000 in compensation, which if it were placed in a bank or building society at 10 per cent. would produce £7,500 a year or £150 a week in interest alone.
For sheer insensitivity not to say arrogance and inhumanity, the letter from the curator is hard to beat. I shall quote from it to prove my point. As regards central heating, the curator says that he would require it to be put out to a contractor and the estimate vetted by him and the accountant of court, and he says:
I would then require a properly documented invoice from the contractor concerned before making payment.
Then the curator goes on about the car:
With regard to the question of replacement of Mr. Aitken's car, it would appear from the earlier paragraphs in your letter"—
that is, the Aitkens' solicitor's letter—
that Mrs. Aitken travels to visit Brian by bus and the costs have already been taken into account.
The curator had already awarded £50 a month to the family. These visits to hospital by bus had already been taken into account. He goes on:
I feel sure that the accountant of court would require further information on the use made of the car and the benefit derived by Brian Aitken from this.
Then the curator refers to the sweets that Mrs. Aitken was taking to hospital for her boy:
I should also bring to your attention that I have received a telephone call from Sister Heggie of Lynebank Hospital pointing out that Brian Aitkin requires a range of new clothing due to the need for numerous changes of clothing as a result of his incontinence and I have authorised Mrs. Heggie to obtain the necessary clothing on behalf of Brian and to forward me the necessary invoices for reimbursement. She has also stated that the Hospital Administration do provide sweets, etc. from the Hospital Shop for Brian on the days when his mother does not visit and that the Hospital may require reimbursement of these charges
for the sweets.
As you state in your letter that Mrs. Aitken visits Brian every day when he is not at home, I would be grateful for clarification on this point.
Then the Curator goes on:
With regard to the point raised in your letter concerning how the funds of the Curatory have been invested, I was not aware of the necessity of informing Mr. and Mrs. Aitken of this having received approval from the Accountant of Court as to the planned course of investment. However"—
it being near Christmas, I suppose—
for investment purposes, I enclose herewith a copy of the investments recommended by Capel-Cure Myers with whom £70,000 of funds have been placed and a balance of just over £4,000 has been placed on deposit with The British Linen Bank and until the recent increase in bank rate, has been earning interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. £1,000 of funds have been retained by Messrs. Strathern and Milne to meet legal costs and outlays in connection with Brian Aitken's claim.
That is the tone of the letter from the trustee. I guess that this is not an unusual case. I do not know how many such cases there are in Scotland that have not had the publicity that this one has had. As long ago as 1975, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, in its publication "No Place to Go", suggested that so far as the property of mentally disordered patients was concerned, a major change in the law was desirable. In the commission's recent pamphlet "Does the Patient Come First?", it said:
Some Curators consider that their only duty is to conserve the ward's estate and are reluctant to authorise expenditure on comforts and even necessities … What is required is a coordinated service whereby the assets of persons who cannot,


because of mental disorder, administer these properly are responsibly looked after at reasonable cost by an accountable public body properly advised as to the needs and requirements of the patient.
The commission concluded:
Unfortunately, this is a problem about which few seem to want to know. Is it too much to hope that some enlightened Government could spare a few hours to produce improved legislation for Scotland on this non-controversial but important subject?
I ask the Minister: is it asking him too much? I know that he is very sympathetic to the case that I am putting and I am grateful to him for that. This Session the legislative programme is very light. I hope that a new mental health Bill for Scotland would go through Parliament speedily this Session. It would be basically non-controversial on a party basis.
I have raised this problem previously on the Floor of the House at Question Time and in other ways. The Minister has promised to investigate this matter. I have sent the relevant papers to the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The Government have already said that they will be taking legislative action on these matters on the same basis as the European Court. I hope that the Minister will give a very sympathetic answer.
I know that, as a result of this publicity, generous offers have been made and I have been given certain details that I shall not disclose, for obvious reasons. It shows the inadequacy of the law that it requires a good deal of adverse publicity before curators bonis can be made to realise the inhumanity of their actions. Will the Minister give us facts and figures on how many cases have been brought to his attention and tell the House whether there are any prospects of legislation on the matter?

Mr. Bruce Milan: The House should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) for the persistence with which he has pursued this case, and for the attendant publicity. What he has said is true. If there had not been that publicity, the more sympathetic understanding that the curator bonis has now shown to the needs of the patient within his care and his family would not have taken place. It is still extremely disturbing, however, that that publicity should have been required. There may be other cases that are being dealt with as unsympathetically as this case was before the publicity that my hon. Friend generated.
There is still a lingering feeling in many circles that those who are mentally disordered are entitled only to the minimum provision, whether in hospital, at home or anywhere else. There is a feeling that they require only minimum care and attention. Much still needs to be done if we are to be satisfied with the way in which we treat mentally ill and mentally disordered patients, whether in Scotland or elsewhere. I hope that the Minister, who I know is personally sympathetic towards these matters, will be able to give some assurances to my hon. Friend about the prospect, for example, of legislation. Many other matters need to be dealt with, too—for example, votes for patients in mental hospitals who do not have home addresses. That is a matter which I have been pursuing without ultimate success for many years. I do not blame the present Government. All Governments have shown a lack of will and energy on some of those matters.
I hope that the Minister will also say what can be done in existing circumstances, short of legislation. My hon.

Friend mentioned the accountant of the Court of Session but, as I understand it, he is there to supervise and to make sure that improper expenditure is not incurred. In this case, we are anxious about the opposite—that proper expenditure has not been incurred because of an unduly restrictive and unsympathetic attitude by the curator bonis. As far as I am aware, under the existing law there is no procedure that easily puts the matter right. Short of legislation, perhaps some guidance can be given that would deal with some of these cases and allow families who feel that they are being unfairly treated to be able to take effective action.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I agree with what the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millian) said in his tribute to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) for raising this matter and for the action that he has taken. I fully appreciate and sympathise with the concern that he and the right hon. Gentleman expressed.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central raised the specific case and referred to the more general question of the law relating to curators bonis. I shall deal first with the specific case and confirm what he has said. He wrote to the Secretary of State on 9 November about the difficulties that his constituent, Mrs. Aitken, had experienced in obtaining funds from the curator from the estate of her disabled son, Brian. As the hon. Gentleman said, Brian was disabled severely about four years ago in a road accident and was awarded damages by the Court of Session of £75,000, which was paid to his curator bonis, less legal expenses, in June of this year.
It may help the House if I explain precisely the function of a curator bonis and the locus of the Secretary of State in particular cases. A curator bonis is one of a variety of different kinds of judicial factor. There are 11 in all. He may be appointed by the courts to manage the estates of persons unable to do so themselves, because, for example, of physical or mental disability. They are appointed and act under the judicial factors legislation. They must adminster the estate for the "comfort and welfare" of the beneficiary. Almost invariably the courts appoint a chartered or certificated accountant or a solicitor. In Brian Aitken's case the curator bonis is an accountant who works for a Glenrothes firm, Messrs Carter, Geoghegan and Co.
All judicial factors operate under the general supervision of the accountant of Court of Session. They are required to ensure that they observe the relevant rules and regulations. The right hon. Member for Craigton mentioned the relationship between the curator bonis and the accountant of court. The curator bonis must give the accountant of court an annual account of the moneys received into and dispersed from the estate. Should he fail to discharge his duties properly, he can be penalised by the court by a fine, having his commission forfeited or being suspended or removed from office. A curator bonis must, therefore, establish that the proposals for expenditure of funds from the estate are demonstrably for the benefit of the beneficary. So long as the management of the estate is conducted by the curator bonis in a way which conforms with the statutory requirements, the accountant of court has no formal locus to intervene, and nor has the Secretary of State.
As the hon. Member for Fife, Central said, in early September Mrs. Aitken asked the curator bonis, through


her solicitor, for certain funds to be made available from the estate to meet expenses being incurred by her in connection with her regular visits to Brian at Lynebank. She subsequently asked for funds to be made available for central heating to be installed in her house—which the family doctor recommended—and for the family car to be replaced.
Before granting such requests, which the accountant of court had agreed in principle could be made, the curator bonis asked Mrs. Aitken's solicitors for informations about the allowances being received, to provide a proper estimate from a contractor for the installation of central heating, which the curator bonis agreed would be of benefit to Brian, and to provide details of the way in which Brian would benefit from the use to be made of a new family car. The queries were apparently a necessary preliminary to funds being made available to Mrs. Aitken.
I fully understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman and the family. The queries and delays must appear as bureaucratic red tape and add further distress to an already tragic situation, but, regrettably, delays can happen when there are safeguard procedures to follow.
In any event, the accountant of court, the curator bonis and Mrs. Aitken met on 14 December, and I understand that Mrs. Aitken's requests for funds have been dealt with to her satisfaction.
It is always open to relatives to deal directly with the curator bonis and, should they be dissatisfied, to raise the matter with the accountant of court. If they are still dissatisfied, the matter should be referred to the courts.
I turn to the more general question of the law governing curators bonis and other judicial factors. I was asked whether we have received notification of other cases where there was dissatisfaction. I am not aware of widespread public dissatisfaction about the law, and no other specific cases have been raised with me recently.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central referred to the reports of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland in 1975 and 1981. The 1975 report pointed out that there was room for a change in the law. The commission was particularly concerned with the property of mentally disordered patients.
In 1980, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act achieved two improvements in this area of the law which I think that the commission has confirmed as significant. The Act abolished the restriction which previously applied to the appointment of the judicial factor by the sheriff court so that it was no longer confined to small estates. It also implemented recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission directed at reducing the expense which might be incurred if a judicial factor wished to sell a heritable property forming part of the estate under his charge.
However, it is clear that there may be a conflict between the understandable view of some families that they should be entitled to a say in the management of the

large damages awarded in cases of this type and the function of the curator bonis to ensure that the estate is properly preserved against the beneficiary's future needs. The principle in Scots common law that the primary duty of the curator bonis is to preserve the estate has been established by case law on judicial factors.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of a general review of legislation. The Scottish Law Commission has invited an academic to prepare a research paper for it on judicial factors. After the research paper has been completed and duly submitted, the commission will consider whether to include an examination of the law in that area in a future reform programme. That is the position on the law relating to judicial factors as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the matters raised by him and the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) at Scottish Question Time on 9 December. I confirm that the points made then will be noted for consideration by the commission. I shall, of course, ensure that the points made this morning are also noted.

Mr. Millan: On the subject of what the study is to cover, I refer to the question of preserving the estate. In this case, given the amount involved, it is not just a matter of preserving the estate. Unless some money is reasonably disbursed, the estate will accumulate and grow, which in this case is pointless. Nobody is asking for estates to be squandered, but in these circumstances preservation cannot be the sole or even the most important criterion. I hope that the study will deal with that.

Mr. Stewart: I repeat what is established under present case law in relation to the primary duty to conserve the estate. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know exactly what the academic study will cover. I confirm that it will be a study of the whole subject. I am happy to repeat my assurance that the points that he has made, including this one, will be brought specifically to the attention of the Scottish Law Commission.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central and the right hon. Member for Craigton both raised the more general question of legislation on mental health in Scotland. The hon. Member for Fife, Central quoted from the Mental Welfare Commission's report. That report stated that an amendment should be made in the law about the property of mentally disordered patients. He will appreciate that I cannot give him a specific assurance on the legislative timetable, but I assure him that careful consideration is being given to the proposal and to the possibility of legislating on the matter as opportunity offers.
As the right hon. Member for Craigton mentioned, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) on 9 December, I announced that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be introducing legislation to deal with the judgment of the European Court on another matter related to mental health. I assure both hon. Members that the points that they have made will immediately be taken into consideration.

Adult Education

Mr. Harry Greenway: Adult education is part of further education. It starts after pupils leave school at 16, at the earliest, and is part of the educational process which, if properly and soundly started, is life-long.
Adult education has two important functions—the enrichment of life and, especially important nowadays, helping to teach new skills. Both are of the highest importance at a time of increased leisure and unemployment.
I speak as the chairman of the parliamentary all-party adult education committee and I pay particular tribute to the contribution to that committee's work by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and the hon. Members for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who are unable to be here today, but who support my remarks.
The committee has considered all aspects of adult education, including university part-time courses and the Open University. It has also considered life enrichment courses of all kinds, including choral music, philosophy, learning about Chinese cultures, and the study of prehistoric man and hundreds more. I have seen keep-fit classes in London and other courses which range from a few months' old baby learning to swim, to a 107-year-old lady keeping fit. Such is the range and cover of adult education. It is, or should be, a facility for everyone, whether the Lord Chief Justice of England following a course of his choice—as was the case with a recent Lord Chief Justice—or the adult illiterate trying to gain the primary skills of life, the better to establish his own life, access to work and dignity. Let us not forget that.
Adult education has a crucial role to play in training for new jobs. We know that modern technology forces change on everyone at an increasingly rapid rate. New skills to cope with that can be learnt through adult education, and access to a new type of work can be provided for those made redundant. That is of central importance.
I shall detain the House with a few facts and figures to illustrate the present situation. The numbers in the age range 25 to 40 will continue growing until the year 2000. Those in the 40-plus age group will grow for much longer. Those two groups of people will see change at an increasingly rapid rate. They will probably change their job twice or more in their working lifetime. Three-quarters of a million people—and the number is rising—have been out of work for a year or more, and 7 to 8 million people change their job each year. At least ½ million lost their jobs through redundancy in 1980, and many of them—although regrettably not all—have found new and different jobs. People will perhaps need training and re-training at least two or three times in their lifetime. Technological change and structural unemployment may continue to present us with a major challenge for the foreseeable future, and are likely to do so.
This is the context in which adult education finds itself in 1981. Nearly 2 million students enrol in adult education courses each year, 85 per cent. of which are provided by local education authorities, and 1 million more adults study on part-time courses in further education establishments. The influence of this area upon our daily lives and the lives of the families of this country is vast.

It is essential, in the face of the challenge presented by technological change and high levels of unemployment, to go beyond the recreational/leisure image of adult education. It is potentially much more than that image suggests.
We need to recognise the valuable resources and expertise embodied in local authority adult education services. We must not continue to push it to the margin of educational provision as a luxury service for those who can pay. The adult education service should be given a vital and essential role in the education, training and re-training of adults. The service is already noted for its scope, flexibility and adaptability, and for its cost-effectiveness. It is cheaper than any other aspect of education. It already works in conjunction with schools, colleges and higher education in many areas.
The barriers between different parts of the education service must be eroded, as in the Open College of the North-West or in the proposed open college for South London, based on the Polytechnic of the South Bank, and in the further education and adult education establishments in Lambeth, which the Minister will know about.
Essentially we are talking about access to education and training, across institutional boundaries, for all adults, whether employed or unemployed. Adult education should be an integral part of all post-school provision, and it could play a vital part in the process of economic recovery.
I fear that in some areas cuts have eroded the infrastructure of adult education. A simple injection of more cash at some future date will not now produce a smooth recovery, although I would not say that I would not welcome the injection of such cash.
I note the 3 per cent. reduction in next year's rate support grant and the increasing trend towards self-financing adult education, which is partly to be welcomed. I do not say that those who can afford to pay should not do so, but the process can be two-edged, in that it can exclude those such as the unemployed who cannot afford to pay, and the steady decline in student numbers in the face of rising fees could exacerbate this trend.
With regard to cuts, I should be grateful to have an assurance from the Minister that the Inner London Education Authority and the outer London boroughs adult education services are not suffering from the present financial hardship.
I now turn to what I regard as the weak legal basis of adult education. Recently a discussion document prepared by officials of the DES and local government associations was issued, entitled "The Legal Basis of Further Education". That document rightly states that substantial elements of current so-called further education are almost ultra vires. Certainly, a number of Government-endorsed programmes of basic and continuing education could not be regarded as having any legal basis in law. That situation alone warrants the serious attention of this House, as, clearly, it is unsatisfactory to have ostensibly public services, endorsed by Parliament in their purpose and intent, requiring certain public money investments yet having no proper legal framework for their operation.
This somewhat bizarre ultra vires issue is symptomatic of a larger concern—that Britain has not kept up to date and relevant its laws, its expression of national intent and its commitment to the continuing education and training of its people. We are still trying to run services on the basis of concepts and perceptions expressed in the early 1940s.
As I have remarked in the House on a number of previous occasions, the wording of some of the relevant sections of the Education Act is archaic. For example, among other things, section 41 refers to
leisure-time occupation, in such organised cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements".
However, the real nonsense prize goes to the latter part of section 41, which, after previously describing in the aforementioned archaic way certain duties devolving upon local education authorities, then states that none of the foregoing could apply if it was not contained within approved "schemes of further education".
Let me offer a modest draft for a new section 41. It is as follows: "It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further, adult and continuing education, that is to say full-time and part-time education for all persons over compulsory school age who are able and willing to profit thereby, such facilities to include general, basic, cultural, physical, social, civic and vocational education."
I am not a parliamentary draftsman, and I recognise that my suggestion would perhaps need to be drafted into suitable legal language, but I offer the Minister that wording as a start in redrafting the legal status of adult education. We must strengthen the legal basis of further education. It must clearly include adult and continuing education within any definition of further education and define the duties of local education authorities accordingly. Those education authorities provide and have a clear duty to provide.
We must also recognise the innovatory and facilitating role of the MSC and should welcome the new training initiative's inclusion of adults within its training proposals. That initiative calls for links between education and training and for the education services to play an important part. The lines between education and training cannot and, perhaps, should not be drawn, but while recognising the link between training and education for 16 to 19-year-olds, the MSC's draft plan for action on the new training initiatives sees employers, Channel 4 and the Open Tech as the main providers of training and retraining for adults.
Surely the education services—further, adult and higher—should have a crucial and expanding role to play in any effective strategy that will cater for the needs of employed and unemployed adults and contribute to the economic recovery of the nation.
As one who has had 17 years' experience of adult education at all levels, in all spheres of life, and in all kinds of courses—vocational, recreational, academic, and others—and as one who lives in a constituency that is deeply affected by changing technology—in Ealing there are more jobs in manufacturing than in any other London borough—I stress the need for this Government and future Governments to accept and strengthen the role of adult education in assisting people to cope with changing social patterns. Adult education is equipped to do that—indeed, no service could do it better.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said, he is the chairman of the all-party committee on adult education, and I wish to express our gratitude for the work that he and

his committee do. He has spoken in the House on a number of occasions about adult education, and he is knowledgeable and concerned about the subject, as his speech showed. We are grateful to him for raising the matter on the Adjournment, because the Government attach special importance to adult education, given the new forces in our society to which he referred. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
First, I want to say a few words about the Government's expenditure plans and some of the effects on adult education. The Government's original expenditure plans, expressed in Cmnd. 8175 last year, assumed that local authority expenditure during the next couple of years would be perhaps one-third lower than the planned expenditure in 1978–79 on adult education. It was reluctantly accepted by the Government that adult education should play a part in the general reduction in public expenditure. As a concomitant, it was reluctantly accepted that that could, in some cases, lead to higher fees and a rationalisation of some of the provision.
However, the situation has improved—as of a few days ago. Under the Government's revised expenditure plans for 1982–83, which were announced on 21 December, £52·3 million will be provided for adult education. That is considerable easing of the targets that were contained in Cmnd. 8175. In other words, the news is good for adult education: the Government have provided more money for next year than had been planned. I urge all local authorities to maintain a viable base for adult education in their communities, in view of the importance that those communities, the Government, and local authorities attach to the matter.
My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that adult education was not suffering. I wish that I could give such an assurance, but there has been a reduction in expenditure, and the consequences of that have been seen in one or two different ways. First, the average hourly fee has increased from about 25p in 1978–79 to 51p in 1981–82. Nevertheless, attendance has not dropped dramatically—far from it. In November 1977 about 1·7 million people attended and in 1980 the figure was 1·6 million. The drop in 1981 is estimated to be about 3 per cent. That shows, I think, that it continues to be extraordinarily good value for money. I am pleased that most local authorities are continuing to give substantial concessions to the elderly, the unemployed, and those who are following the basic studies of literacy and numeracy. That is important particularly in these days.
My hon. Friend spoke about the Inner London Education Authority and asked for an assurance that adult education was not suffering in its area. It is easy to give that assurance, but I must mention briefly the distressing scare campaign of which my hon. Friend, although representing an outer London constituency, is aware. It has been waged in a great many adult education institutes throughout the ILEA. It claims that Government measures will stop adult education in London. In some classrooms, there are scare pictures of tombstones with messages attacking the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which has now been dropped. Leaflets, carrying this regrettable scare story, have been distributed London-wide. The campaign caused great distress to many people, including a number of old-age pensioners, who believed it. I have received many distressing letters to this effect.
I make two points in rebuttal of this regrettable campaign. The ILEA is a vastly wealthy authority. It spends about half as much again above that which the Government estimate it needs to spend to provide an average level of service. I shall not go into details about what many people feel to be extravagance, but I give as an instance the fact that 23 per cent. of ILEA expenditure in 1980–81 was on non-teaching staff. I compare that with three other cities with inner city problems chosen at random: Birmingham, which spent 16·1 per cent.; Leeds, which spent 15 per cent.; and Bradford, which spent 15·8 per cent. Any cuts or closures in adult education will be the decision of the ILEA, because it has given lower priority to adult education than to good housekeeping.
The Government hope very much that the ILEA will reduce its expenditure and give better value for money. Nevertheless, the ILEA is unique. It is spending so much that it has received no Government grant. That means that now there is no way in which the Government can control expenditure other than by banning supplementary rates. If we are to believe The Standard of 9 December, the ILEA has decided to defy the Government's pleadings for financial prudence, and London ratepayers will suffer in consequence.
My hon. Friend asked about the legal basis of adult education, and I am glad that he did, because it is rather a knotty problem. Adult education is part of "further education" as defined in section 41 of the 1944 Act. I accept that, in consequence of the phrasing of the Act, there is no firm statutory basis to support adult education. Therefore, I accept that there is no way in which the Government can intervene to prevent an authority from reducing its provision, assuming that the Government wish to intervene. With a statutory duty, there is always a difficulty about how much education of whatever sort will meet the duty. If the Government start to define in legislation how much is necessary to meet a duty, they find themselves in very deep waters.
As a consequence of these difficulties, a group was formed drawn from the Department of Education and Science and local authorities to review the legal basis of further education, and its report was published in the summer. Responses to it were asked for by the end of October. Officials in the Department are now considering those responses, and a decision will have to be made in due course.
There are two main areas of concern. The first is whether a duty should lie on local education authorities to provide adult education, or merely a power to do so. There was some discussion and initially some disagreement, but in the responses that we have received there seems to be general agreement that it should be a duty.

Mr. Greenway: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shelton: The second area of concern is the absence of a definition of adult and continuing education. The report decided that it was too imprecise, and the responses confirmed that. This, too, is being considered.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate when or even whether these issues will be brought to the House until they have been considered by Ministers, but I accept that they are important. I assure him that I shall look carefullly at his suggested drafting and that it will be considered by the Department. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and for the time and thought that he must have given to it.
It is in no way denigratory to say that adult education has tended to be seen as a way of passing the time for retired people, a way of enriching life and of helping people with their hobbies. May adult education continue so to be seen and used. It gives great comfort to many people, but it must do much more. My hon. Friend mentioned unemployment and technological changes, and he was right to do so. More and more people will find that they need to adopt a second career during their working lives. In the United States the adult worker already has about 2·1 or 2·2 careers in his working life, whereas in this country a person still does not have much more than one career in his working life.
As technology and the environment change, I am afraid that workers—perhaps it will be an opportunity for them—will have to find new careers. I hope that adult education will help in that respect. There is, therefore, a great need for adult education and it is more important than ever.
There is no doubt that adult education is responding to the challenge. I welcome the encouraging response by many local authorities to the stimulus given by the Government through the adult literacy and basic skills unit. It is clear that the initiative is having an effect. That is the way forward and the way in which adult education must play its part in the changes in this decade. Millions of people are being helped each year by adult education to meet the challenges that they face in their daily lives. It has a responsible role to play and I am glad to say that adult education is taking on that responsibility.
I do not wish to end my speech without returning to the all-party committee chaired by my hon. Friend. The Department is well aware of what is happening in adult education and of the difficulties being encountered as a result of the reduction in funding. We are grateful for the way in which most local authorities have overcome those difficulties. It is a matter of some gratification that the numbers taking up adult education have not declined, as some people predicted might happen with the increase in fees. We wish that we could fund adult education as generously as we would like to but my hon. Friend and the House will know that every aspect of public expenditure is under considerable pressure, and my hon. Friend will accept that adult education is not immune from those pressures.
I am glad that we have had this short debate. I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks and any reassurance that I have given will be circulated. I hope, too, that I have reassured those who wrote to me, to my hon. Friend and to the Department about the future of adult education in ILEA.

Southampton Docks (Industrial Relations)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I very much regret the need for this debate. I wish to be careful not to say anything that could exacerbate the situation. I am speaking not on behalf of the management or workers involved in the disputes, but on behalf of the people of Southampton. They are fed up and frustrated by the seemingly endless series of industrial disputes, which is slowly killing our port.
It is nine months since the port of Southampton worked normally. Southampton is a town of 200,000 people. Its prosperity depends largely on international trade and commerce. It could and should be one of the major ports—if not the major port—in the country. It has many natural advantages, such as double tides and the capacity to deal with very large ships. It also has the geographical advantage of being close to the Continent and is ideally suited to take advantage of the new trading patterns that have emerged since Britain entered the EEC.
The major shipping companies, both British and foreign, want to use Southampton. In the 1970s, through the initaitive of the British Transport Docks Board, Southampton developed some of the finest container facilities in the country and it has the capacity for further expansion, should the need arise. All that is threatened by the prolonged series of industrial disputes, which started in March and which are still going on. It is sad to be taken round what should be a busy dock and to notice an almost total absence of ships. The problem is not only local but national. Some of the ships that normally use the port have been diverted to other British ports, but many have gone to our Continental competitors. That can only mean a loss of revenue to Britain.
The shipping companies—notably the Solent Container Consortium—have suffered severe losses. It is increasingly doubtful whether many of the shipping companies that have been forced to make other arrangements will return to Southampton when the disputes eventually end. Thousands of people in Southampton are not directly involved in the disputes, but they depend for their livelihoods on ships entering the port. Those employed in the import-export business, shipping agents, freight and forwarding agents, small firms, self-employed people and even the town's taxi drivers, have had their incomes dramatically reduced in the past few months.
I have said enough to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem for Southampton. As the Minister knows, Southampton does not face the normal type of industrial dispute between employers and workers. This is not the sort of dispute in which an employer is offering 5 per cent., while the workers are asking for 10 per cent. Matters are much more complicated than that. The dispute involves arguments about relativities in earnings and working conditions enjoyed by one group of workers compared with another. It is complicated by the fact that for historical reasons two trade unions—the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Union of Railwaymen—are involved. Early in 1981 the situation began with a dispute involving registered dock workers. After a long time, that was settled. However, it was

followed by disputes involving other groups in the port. For several months there has been a dispute involving 150 checkers which shows no sign of being settled. It will certainly not be settled before Christmas.
ACAS has been involved in several of the disputes with varying degrees of success. The difficulty with ACAS is that it is equipped to deal with an individual dispute between an employer and a group of workers but it does not have the capacity to deal with the problems of the port as a whole. A settlement with the checkers could have repercussions among the other groups of workers in the port, who have threatened that if the wrong settlement is reached they will renew their industrial dispute.
It is often difficult to ascertain the facts because of accusations and counter-accusations. It is no part of my task today to try to apportion blame between management and workers or between one group of workers and another. I pay tribute to the management and to those trade union officials who have worked hard to try to find a solution to the problems in the port during the past nine months. They recognise the dangers of the position.
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on the Front Bench. I wish to quote from a letter that I received from him on 15 December, in which he says:
As much as I deplore the present situation and its damaging consequencies for the many whose livelihoods depend on the Port, there can be no question of Government involvement. Day to day management of the Southampton Docks is the responsibility of the British Transport Docks Board. And the Board is convinced that its firm stance in the current dispute will, in the long run, ensure the future viability of this Port.
I recognise that the Government are reluctant to become directly involved in industrial disputes. However, in this case the normal processes of negotiation are not proving successful. The position has dragged on for so long that the time has now come at least to consider an alternative arrangement. I wish to suggest the possibility of an inquiry into the pay structure and industrial relations problems in Southampton docks. It is an overall problem, although it has been brought forward in a series of individual disputes. Because of the need for speed, I suggest that one person skilled in industrial relations, with perhaps two assessors—as Armitage had—could produce a comprehensive report quickly. If the port of Southampton is to survive, we must get back to normal working as soon as possible. Furthermore, if the shipping companies are to be encouraged to return to Southampton, the settlement must be lasting. They must have a guarantee of normal working for some time.
I have received dozens of letters asking me what I can do or what the Government intend to do. I wish to quote parts of a letter from a lady, which sums up the position well. She said:
How long is this dispute to be allowed to carry on in a port which has the maximum tidal facilities … the best container facilities in the country? What 'come back' do the self-employed people in the port have? My husband's money was cut by half last month, yet he cannot get any recompense. … The financial side with all its implications is bad enough, but my husband is not being allowed to do the job that he has worked for since he was 16 years old. … Why do they want to kill Southampton which could possibly be one of the best ports in Europe?
Please, what is being done about the situation before still more professional people are going to be forced to look abroad for occupation legitimately due to them in the country where they trained and have served?
That is a cry from the heart from a lady whom I do not know. I do not even know what job her husband does in


the port. However, it is typical of many letters that I have received. I know that the other hon. Members who represent Southampton have also received such letters. It shows the frustration felt by large numbers of ordinary people who cannot understand why a settlement has not been reached. I hope that the Minister can offer us some ray of hope this afternoon.
I sincerely hope that I will not have to attempt to repeat this Adjournment debate at Easter or next summer. I appeal to the Minister to do whatever he can to bring about an early settlement so that our port can once again resume its place in the trade of Britain.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) has raised a matter of great concern to the Government, and that is evidenced by the presence here today not only of myself but of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. The matter is also of great concern to all hon. Members.
Happily, the industrial disruption we have seen in the port of Southampton since March of this year has not been repeated in other parts of the ports industry or, indeed, in industry generally, but it has provided a glaring example of the really bad side of industrial relations in Britain. What has been happening has been bad for trade, bad for jobs, bad for Southampton and bad for Britain, and there is no sense in it. We all want an end to it, and a settlement to be reached. I do not want to say anything that could make the achievement of a settlement more difficult, but it is right that I should follow the example of the hon. Member for Itchen and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) who have done their level best to bring home to those concerned the harm they are doing to others.
I shall not depress myself and the House before Christmas by going into a long history. I will merely try to give the general picture. Although until this year Southampton had a relatively good record for industrial relations, there have been in recent times a number of minor disputes and underlying unrest—mainly between different grades of workers and between members of different unions. The multiplicity of agreements and working practices have not helped.
In those circumstances, the British Transport Docks Board decided to make a determined attempt to bring the various working practices into line and adopt a common working arrangement for various shift systems. That was essential to meet changing traffic patterns. Great credit is due to it for the determined effort it has made, and is still making, to achieve its objectives. It is essential for the well-being of this great port that its efforts should be successful. It never expected that its negotiations would be easy and that they would be accomplished overnight, but no one could have expected the problems that have come about. A major factor has been squabbling between the members of the different unions. It is high time that those working in Southampton docks realised that, if they are not prepared to consider the thousands of the families dependent on the docks, they must realise that their own livelihoods depend on their being prepared to work together.
The dismal story is that from March to July there were disputes stemming from the pay negotiations for registered

dock workers. Those took the form of 24-hour lightning strikes, an alleged lockout when the BTDB said that port operations would cease until dockers agreed to halt disruptive action, and a ban on overtime and night shift working.
On 17 July a two-stage agreement on pay was accepted by a mass meeting of dockers but, when negotiations took place to finalise shift working arrangements for the other groups who work on the container berths, new trouble broke out. Full shift working was eventually resumed on 3 September but when, on 19 September, revised shift arrangements were introduced for the checkers, who are NUR members, to bring them in line with the working arrangements for the other groups, they refused to work the new arrangements.
Since 23 September, they have been working on a day shift basis, Monday to Friday only. All other groups then reverted to day working on 31 October and the dockers have now threatened industrial action if a settlement with the checkers is more favourable than their own. Some given to nautical metaphors might say that employers are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Throughout the dispute ACAS has been in close touch with the situation and the parties know that it is still ready and willing to help. Hon. Members have been quoted in the press as despairing at ACAS's inability to bring the parties together, and there have been calls, before today and again today, for some sort of inquiry into the dispute, but I think that this view both underestimates ACAS's contribution to reducing the areas of conflict at Southampton over the past months and overestimates the part that an inquiry might play in achieving a settlement.
In fairness to ACAS, it must be put on the record that it helped achieve an interim settlement in the summer. Subsequent difficulties led to further conciliation and ACAS appointed a mediator in November as a result of which the difficulties which had arisen over premium payments for shift working and rostering of NUR checkers were cleared up. Unfortunately, certain matters such as manning and grading were specifically excluded from the mediation and remain to be settled. But, looking at history, we should not underestimate what has been achieved already by ACAS, and ACAS is ready and willing to help the parties further if it can. Therefore, I do not accept the assertion of the hon. Member for lichen, that ACAS has not the capacity to deal with the problems of the port as a whole.
The key issue raised in the debate is whether an inquiry would help achieve a settlement, but one wonders what is the point of an inquiry when most, if not all, the salient points are known. The British Transport Docks Board is trying to get a more rational set of working arrangements. Its proposals conflict with deeply entrenched rivalries between particular groups of workers and their unions. Trade is being lost to Southampton and more will be lost and lost permanently unless the remaining issues in dispute are settled. The jobs of other than those of dockers and checkers are at stake. Those are the facts. Everyone knows them. An inquiry is not needed to reveal them. An inquiry could elaborate on them but not change them. An inquiry is, in my judgment, less likely than ACAS conciliation to bring about a settlement.
This Christmas, in Southampton many people will have to manage on a reduced income. Perhaps they and their wives will use the opportunity of the break to reflect on their actions during 1981. As the hon. Gentleman said,


Southampton is one of the finest container ports in Europe, if not in the world. Given industrial peace, its potential for increased traffic is enormous. One of Southampton's natural advantages is that it is blessed with a double daily tide, but the tide is now running out for Southampton. If the unions, if the individual members of the unions, do not settle their differences and work together, their jobs will be lost, and Southampton will cease being a prime container port. We in Government can only state the obvious and pray that people are not so stupid or so wicked as to ignore it. Thank goodness the parties are still talking. Therefore, hope for a solution still remains.

Escalators (Safety Standards)

Mr. Jocelyn Cadbury: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of safety standards on escalators. My attention was first drawn to this issue by two particularly unpleasant accidents that occurred in Birmingham. The first accident happened in May 1978 to Sally Glennan, the four-year-old daughter of my constituent, Mr. T. Glennan, while she was on an escalator in Woolworths in Northfield. Sally and her mother had been out in the rain and Sally slipped over on the escalator, was spreadeagled across it and got her foot caught between the moving step and a side wall of the escalator. Fortunately, the machine stopped but her right leg was seriously damaged and remains disfigured.
A similar accident occurred on an escalator in the Rackham's store in Birmingham in January 1979 to four-year-old Rachel Lloyd. Her foot and leg were drawn in between the moving step and the side of the escalator and she remained trapped there in great pain for over an hour. Rachel had to have four operations. She has not lost her leg but she will always walk with a limp as a result of this unpleasant accident.
The safety of escalators was raised as long ago as December 1968 by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and more recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and myself. In 1969 a campaign was started by the distinguished London surgeon Mr. Alexander Kates, who did a great deal of research into escalator safety, having been prompted to do so by some particularly gruesome operations that he had had to perform. In the February 1968 issue of The Lancet Mr. Kates described how twice in the previous two years he had had to amputate part of a child's leg.
One of the major difficulties facing those who have researched into accidents on escalators is that until this year there has been no systematic collection of statistics on the frequency of accidents. However, after looking into this matter myself, I think that one can make a number of observations with a fair degree of certainty. First, the number of serious accidents on escalators is relatively small in relation to the millions of people who use them, but when a serious accident occurs it is usually extremely unpleasant—as my two examples have demonstrated.
Such evidence as there is suggests that the most serious accidents usually occur to young children. It is interesting to note that both Sally Glennan and Rachel Lloyd were only four years old when they had their accidents.
Obviously it is not always easy for mothers, particularly in crowded department stores and if they are carrying shopping, to control young children. At the same time, some accidents are undoubtedly caused by the abuse of elementary safety rules, either through ignorance or by young pranksters.
No piece of moving machinery can be made 100 per cent. accident-proof, and there will always be human error, but when the price is as high as the loss of a child's limb the House has a responsibility to raise safety standards to the highest practical level.
As a result of the efforts of those who have campaigned on this issue, some progress has been made. First, all serious accidents on escalators must now be reported to local authorities under the Notification of Accidents and


Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. This means that it is possible for the Health and Safety Executive to learn how many serious accidents occur each year on escalators. We shall have the first complete set of figures on this subject in January next year.
A second area of activity has been taking place at the European level. The Comité Européen de Normalisation—CEN—has drawn up proposals for escalator standards. These are progressing towards adoption by all European countries. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will know that if the proposals are accepted by all these countries they will be incorporated in the standards of the British Standards Institution, probably some time next year.
I have examined the CEN proposals. I believe that they fall far short of what is both necessary and possible to make escalators safe. They represent very little, if any, advance on the standards already incorporated in those of the British Standards Institution. While there is no harm in adopting the CEN proposals, the only effective improvements in escalator safety in this country will come from a unilateral raising of British standards in many important areas.
The suggestions that I make fall into two main categories. They concern technical improvements to make escalators more safe, the training of staff who work in places where escalators are operated and the education of the general public about the hazards of escalators.
My first recommendation concerns the installation of what are called microswitches. These switches are sensitive to increases in pressure and can be fitted to the flexible sides of escalators so that they bring them to a halt if a person gets a foot or a piece of clothing caught between the step of the escalator and the skirt wall. Microswitches can be fitted at regular intervals on the sides of the escalator so that in the event of an accident at least the machine will be brought to a halt. It is possible to fit these devices at two other danger points—on the cone, where the escalator disappears into the ground, and on the so-called handrail entry box where the handrail goes out of sight.
These microswitches are not cheap. They may cost £1,000 to instal on an existing machine, but they would not represent more than about 5 per cent. of the cost of a new escalator. Marks and Spencer has had these micro-switches fitted since 1969. I suggest that the fitting of microswitches be incorporated into the British standards in addition to the CEN proposals.
While all escalators should be fitted with micro-switches, conventional emergency stop buttons will remain a second line of defence. On long escalators, such as some of the London Transport machines, the problem is that if an accident occurs half way up the escalator, it is a long way for someone either to run up or run down to press the emergency stop button or to shout to a fellow passenger to push the button. The CEN proposals mention that problem and "permit"—that is its word—additional stop buttons if the escalators rise more than 12 metres. I recommend that the British Standards Institution should go further and incorporate into its standards the fitting of additional stop buttons half way up long escalators.
A third area in which I should like Britain to improve on the European standards is in the painting of yellow lines on escalator steps to show where it is safe to stand. Many department stores already have yellow lines, but the CEN proposals make no mention of them. Thought needs to be given to where the lines are positioned on the steps. One

expert explained to me that the line that crosses the steps should be painted, not near the leading edge, but at the back of the step near the so-called riser. That is because the point of maximum danger is when one's foot rests against the riser.
Another important factor is the siting, size and character of warning notices. It is vital that warning signs should be conspicuously placed and are large and clear enough to be easily understood. I recommend that pictographs and writing should be used. Pictographs are particularly necessary in London because many foreigners who use escalators cannot read English. The CEN proposals suggest pictographs of 18 mm. by 18mm. Surely that is too small. I believe that they would need to be substantially larger to ensure that members of the public can easily read them. In addition to the warning suggested by the CEN, I recommend that warnings against the wearing of soft footwear, particularly soft rubber boots, which so often cause accidents, should be included.
Skirt guards have been fitted on most London Transport underground escalators. They protrude a few inches from the side of the escalator to discourage passengers from standing too close to the danger area. They run along just above the moving steps, so cannot prevent someone from putting his foot into the unprotected triangle, but they act as a deterrent. The fact that London Transport, which is one of the biggest single users of escalators, makes use of the device is a considerable recommendation. Skirt guards are not included in the CEN proposals or in the BSI standards, but there can be no argument against their use. I urge my hon. Friend to see that they are incorporated in the BSI standards.
An ingenious variation on the theme is a continuous brush fixed to the side of the escalator which encourages passengers to stand on a safe area of the step in a harmless way.
Certain substances help to prevent the adhesion of soft-soled shoes and rubber boots to the sides of escalators. Coatings of Teflon and Adsil are most effective. Two well-known department stores already use such substances. I suggest that the use of such coatings is written into the BSI standards.
I turn to two other key issues relating to escalator safety—staff training and the need to promote public awareness of the dangers of escalators. Staff who work in department stores or in other places where there are escalators should be thoroughly trained in the prevention of accidents and the procedure for dealing with them if they occur. Marks and Spencer already takes great trouble to train its staff. For example, a member of staff will stop little children playing on escalators if she sees them doing so.
When Rachel Lloyd had her accident there was considerable confusion, and it took time before the necessary emergency services arrived. Her leg was stuck in the escalator for 1¼ hours before firemen eventually freed it. They first tried to dismantle the escalator and finally used a crowbar to release the child.
It is extremely important that staff should be well trained and know which services to call and that those who work in the services, such as firemen, receive instruction in the quickest method to free trapped passengers. The Department of Employment should publish a booklet for excalator operators describing the proper safety procedures.
There is alarming ignorance among the public of the hazards of escalators. One has only to travel on an escalator to see adults and children doing things that they would not do if they understood the risks. Mothers and young children are perhaps the most vulnerable. Every possible step should be taken to promote a greater awareness of the need to observe the relatively simple rules.
In 1979 a British Safety Council survey showed that, of 500 people questioned, over half did not know how to stop an escalator in an emergency. The level of public consciousness could be raised through short television programmes, school visits to department stores and a green cross code on escalator safety similar to the road safety code.
We should not be satisfied with the European proposals on escalator safety. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to consider raising the BSI standards to incorporate the points that I have suggested. The companies and authorities which operate escalators will observe the BSI standards and any improvements to them. However, the Health and Safety Executive should monitor new safety standards, and if after, say, two years or a reasonable time it has evidence that the new standards are not being attained, the Government should consider making them statutory. In setting these standards, we must be realistic about what operators can afford to pay and the time scale in which they can meet improvements in safety standards.
We shall soon have reliable statistics on the number of serious accidents. My hon. and learned Friend will then be in a better position to judge the seriousness of the problem. Meanwhile, I hope that he will consider the suggestions that I have made so that accidents such as those which happened to Sally Glennan and Rachel Lloyd may become a thing of the past.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) has raised a matter of considerable importance. He has also raised a number of detailed aspects of the problem. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not remember to deal with each of those matters in my speech. If I miss any, I shall write to him afterwards.
The plain fact is that the use of escalators in public places is increasing. We must therefore see that they are as safe as possible. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is quite right. There have been a few serious accidents, including the one suffered in 1978 by the child to whom my hon. Friend has referred—a girl of 3, the daughter of one of his constituents, who slipped on an escalator and got her wellington boot stuck. I am told that the cut-out worked immediately, but she still suffered a painful injury with some permanent disfigurement.
Happily, serious accidents are rare. In referring to the accident record, I should mention that since the coming into force of the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 on the 1 January 1981, escalator accidents causing death or major injury must be reported immediately to the enforcing authority—the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority, as the case may be. Before 1 January, many major users were not required to report, but two years ago several large stores

and organisations made their accident statistics available to the HSE. Those statistics enable me to tell the House that the safety record is good.
Most accidents are minor, involving shock, bruises and cuts, generally resulting from falls. As one might expect, they tend to happen to the very young and the elderly, as do most accidents on ordinary stairs. A small number of minor accidents are special to escalators, such as hands or feet being pinched or cut through becoming trapped, but only a few more serious injuries involving severe laceration and muscle damage are caused in the same way.
Detailed statistics for 1981 are being extracted in response to my hon. Friend's written request some while ago, and I shall let him have them as soon as possible. A preliminary search has identified only four serious accidents during the year. One involved a boy of 7 whose wellington boot became stuck to the step of an escalator in a shop and he was thrown off at the end, breaking his leg. In another shop accident, a woman of 55 tripped and fell, breaking her kneecap. A third accident occurred on British Rail when one woman pushed another down an escalator. In a fourth, also on British Rail, two passengers collided and one fell and broke her leg.
I believe that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act has made firms more aware of their obligations to warn members of the public as well as their own employees. There is little doubt that manufacturers, too, are aware of their duty under section 6 of the Act to provide safe equipment. Indeed, in recent years, better design, increased use of warning notices and signs and better placing of emergency stops have been clearly seen.
There has been a British standard for the manufacturing of escalators since 1969. That is a voluntary design standard but it is generally observed by manufacturers and has contributed to the good safety record. However, some manufacturers have voluntarily gone beyond that and achieved even safer designs, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield.
British suppliers have also been collaborating with the European committee for standardisation, the CEN—I will not risk using my French—to produce a common European standard—the EN 115, which is much more detailed and comprehensive than the British Standard but does not have vastly different safety requirements. The main improvements are a trip guard at the end of the hand rail, a cut out if the comb-plates get jammed and emphasis on warning signs and pictographs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said that he was disappointed that microswitches and skirt guards were not included in the EN 115. The skirt guards, with the microswitches, are now fitted on all escalators in Marks and Spencer stores and reports indicate that they have caused no problems. Although they do not prevent trapping, they do prevent injury by quickly stopping an escalator and they were strongly argued for by our British representatives on the CEN committee. Therefore, the Health and Safety Executive will support the skirt guard when the standards are considered by the BS committee.
Warning lines are not liked by European countries which prefer warning signs and pictographs, but they are in general use in the United Kingdom. The HSE regard them as useful and, again, I can tell my hon. Friend that it would support their inclusion in British standards. We again argued for that to be done in the European committee but were unsuccessful in our efforts to have that included.
The European standard requires that emergency stop buttons be conspicuously placed and easily accessible at or near landings and says that on long escalators—over 12 metres rise—additional points are required. My hon. Friend advocates more stop buttons than that, and that will be pursued by the HSE with the BSI, but it needs careful consideration. The counter-argument is a strong one—that inadvertent or mischievous operation of an emergency stop button can cause serious danger to other passengers; the more stop buttons on an escalator, the greater the chance of malicious use.
I am told that the use of low-friction paint or materials is already covered by the European standards, which require the use of certain material to prevent trapping, but I shall consider the matter more closely in the light of my hon. Friend's remarks.
I have already touched on special warning notices. European standards require that each country can require warning notices if they think that they will be useful. Pictorial warning notices are not all that easy to devise and I was discussing that yesterday with my officials. We racked our brains to think of a pictograph that could bring home to people that they should not travel on escalators when wearing soft shoes. It is not always easy to find a pictograph that conveys the message one would wish to convey.
The European standard will be finally voted on in January, and if accepted it will take effect six months later. It will then be up to us to produce a new British standard into which the requirements of the European standard are translated. But, as I have already demonstrated, it will be open to us to introduce what are called "national options". In other words, we can make variations provided that the standard is not lowered and that we give notice of those variations.
I shall ask the Health and Safety Executive's representatives on the British Standards Committee to see that all the points raised by my hon. Friend are thoroughly considered. If they offer a significant increase in safety without imposing excessive costs on the manufacturer and the user, I am sure that they can be adopted.
I accept that escalator safety needs to be kept under review, and also what my hon. Friend had to say about training of staff. My understanding is that sections 2 to 4 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 require employers to look to this matter. The HSE has already planned a detailed study of accidents during 1982 to see what further lessons might be learnt.
I do not see—although this has sometimes been asked for—that there is a need for the British Standard to be incorporated in a code of practice. It is already observed and an inspector can refer to it in deciding whether proper precautions have been observed. For the same reason, I do not consider that new regulations are necessary. I am, however, confident that if, after the accident study, the HSE think any further action is necessary, it will not hesitate to propose it.

Animal Care

Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise, at this season, the plight of animals given as Christmas pets by people who try to do a kindness but who so often commit a cruelty. There is no other season at which more unkindness is done by mistake and with the best motives.
It is a basic human wish to provide companionship for others, above all at Christmas. People who see others who are lonely may believe that they can provide for those people the same sort of companionship that they themselves enjoy so much through having a pet. They may know, for instance, that next door there is a lonely child, anxious for the fun, the frolic, the delight and the joy that a loved pet can bring. So they decide to give the child a lovely surprise on Christmas Day—or they may see, in a pet shop window, a furry creature which the people next door would surely adore, or perhaps grandparents decide to buy a pet for their grandchildren's Christmas.
As a result, the chances are that the givers will commit an unkindness not only to the pet but also to the people who receive it. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals have appealed this Christmas to everyone not to give pets, because too often they have to deal with the aftermath.
First, there are the children who delight in their pets on Christmas Day, who perhaps are still not bored with them on Boxing Day but who then return to their friends to their football or to the fields, or to their schools, and somebody else has to look after the animals. Perhaps the parents do not want to cope or cannot cope. Perhaps they are at work, or the pet is a puppy which cannot be left alone for more than a few hours and the family are all out for much of the day. It is not fair on the puppy, it is not fair on the kitten, and it is not fair on the family.
It may be that the recipients would love to look after the animal, but people forget that a puppy—a tiny, lively, happy little creature—will before long grow into an adult animal. Ogden Nash once said:
The trouble with a kitten is that Eventually it becomes a cat".
A puppy is inexpensive to keep and lovely—if messy—to look after, but when it gets big it costs more to feed and too often its owners cannot afford that cost.
Animal welfare societies tell us that there is more cruelty today, in times of recession, than ever before. Too many pet owners do not have the means to look after an extra member of the family. When we give a dog, a cat or any other animal as a pet, we are introducing a new member into a family. We should not impose a new member on anyone else's family or even on our own unless we are certain that they all want it. Sometimes one member of the family wants the pet and the others do not. Many families will be quarrelling their way through Christmas because they cannot agree on what to do with the unwanted gift—it maybe a gift that one member of the family wants and others do not.
I know of a family not far from here who already had a cat. Someone gave them a dog, and the two animals do not get on together. We forget that animals also have personalities, jealousies and rights.
The effect of giving pets at Christmas is often a catastrophe for the people concerned. It is especially catastrophic for the cats and dogs.
I recently visited the Leicester headquarters of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals and discussed also with people from their Derby headquarters the sort of problems they have with unwanted pets. In my constituency, stray dogs are a problem on many estates throughout the year. Dogs are put out either because their owners do not love them or because they do not have the means to look after them or to care for them.
The RSPCA says that every day of the week strays are collected and brought into their pound to be looked after. It is hoped that people will collect the animals, but every week the RSCPA has to put down animals that nobody wants. Monday is called "Bloody Monday", because that is the day of the week when the RSCPA has to put down hundreds of animals which nobody wants.
The period after Christmas is the bloodiest in the year. That is when families which have received pets which they do not want, and do not know how to cope with, put the animals into the street—sometimes even a motorway. The animals are treated with the sort of cruelty which, it is sometimes forgotten, is totally illegal. Offenders are not often caught because it is difficult to identify the many people who have behaved in that way.
A short time ago, a veterinary surgeon wrote in the Sunday Mirror:
Christmas is the worst possible time to give anyone—a child, a relative or a friend—a pet as a surprise present. You do not do it as a surprise. You must not surprise people with a new member of the family.
The RSPCA has said this year:
If an appealing little kitten or puppy catches your eye as an ideal Christmas present for one of your family or for a friend, we urge you to stop and think again of the problems that could be involved not only for the recipient but also for the future welfare of the animal.
Last year the RSPCA found new homes for 94,000 animals, but far more than that were not so lucky and did not have homes and were put down. The extent of the problem in this animal-loving country is incredible. We have a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but only a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. We love our children, and there are reasons for the difference in the names. I hope that at this Christmas time the House will allow me to make an appeal of behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.
On occasion, I have clashed with the Minister of State. I appreciate that he has other problems connected with people. But as this is Christmas time I am happy to say publicly that he has often successfully gone out of his way to try to help. This is an occasion to thank him for the kindness which, despite laws and regulations, he and his staff often manage to show people. Perhaps this is also an occasion when he might stretch his kindness a little further, in the direction of animals. Perhaps he will send a message from this great House that there is a tradition of kindness that stretches beyond people into the animal kingdom. I hope that he will urge people to resist the temptation to give pets so as not to cause more unwanted or abandoned pets to be put out when the Christmas season is over.
The Minister should remember that the number of pets abandoned because of the recession is higher than ever.

The situation was bad enough in past Christmases, but in 1982 it is likely to be worse as pets become victims of the recession and their owners find that they can no longer afford to keep them.
Unfortunately, the law on cruelty to animals is often honoured only in the breach and on many occasions there is no law. There is no law against giving a pet to people who do not want it. Indeed, there cannot be. It must be a matter for human judgment. By all means let us wish each other a happy Christmas through the giving of gifts, but not through the giving of pets when the recipients do not necessarily want them.
Even now, if people have bought pets to give away in two or three days' time, they should resist the temptation and somehow find a way of making quite sure that the pet is wanted. The Minister's advice should be firm. Above all, kindness to people this Christmas is paramount, particularly to the elderly, the lonely, the housebound, the disabled, those who dare not go out because the pavements are icy and the thousands of people in hospital with broken limbs and other ailments. They need our care and help. We must not forget them, but we should also spare a moment to think about the unnecessary cruelty to those who cannot speak for themselves.
I ask the Minister to give proper advice from the Dispatch Box so that Christmas can be a better one for people who receive animals but do not want them. We should also spare a thought for the animals who are likely to be abandoned. We should pay tribute to the RSPCA, the PDSA and all those who on behalf of the community care for animals during the year. They should be spared the absolute misery after Christmas of looking after or putting down animals that are given with the best motives in mind by people who should have asked first and then probably not given at all.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on his choice of subject, and I thank him for his kind personal remarks. The topic that he has raised is appropriate at this time of the year, although perhaps it should have come a little earlier in the year, because we are now very near Christmas. However, we have to take whatever opportunities the House offers. The hon. and learned Gentleman has performed a service in raising the subject.
On the face of it, a pet appears to be an acceptable Christmas present, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the giving of animals at Christmas is often done without full appreciation of the implications and without proper regard to the arrangements for their welfare. What seems to be the answer to the problem of choosing a gift in the pre-Christmas rush can, after Christmas, take on a quite different character. It may result in neglect, or even abandonment, of unwanted pets.
The law has an important part to play in seeking to safeguard the welfare of animals, though, as I shall explain, our concerns about the giving of animals as Christmas presents cannot adequately be dealt with just by legislation. We need also education and example.
The Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offence to cause or, being the owner, permit to be caused any unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. It is open to any person or society to initiate proceedings under the Act where there is reason to believe


that an offence has been committed; or he or the society may report the matter to the police, who will decide, in the light of the facts of the case, whether to prosecute. The penalties for offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which has its counterpart in the 1912 Act in Scotland, include a maximum fine of £500 or three months' imprisonment or both. There is also an important power whereby a court can deprive a person convicted of cruelty of the ownership of the animal or animals involved. Further, in the case of a repeated offence, it can also deprive the offender, who may not actually be the owner of the animal concerned, of its custody.
I recognise that the hon. and learned Member is anxious to tackle at source the problem of the acquisition of pets in unsuitable circumstances, before any risk arises that the animals concerned would be subject to the kind of maltreatment at which the Protection of Animals Acts are aimed. But, as he well knows, much of the impact of the law in these situations must depend upon the existence of relatively severe sanctions to deal with the aggravated cases.
The law does, however, provide other measures which attempt to deal with the problem at an earlier stage and before there is any actual intention to cause wilful suffering. The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 makes it an offence for any person, without reasonable cause or excuse, to abandon a captive or domestic animal, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. The maximum penalty on conviction of such an offence is a fine of £500 or three months' imprisonment or both.
The sale of pet animals is regulated by the Pet Animals Act 1951. This requires those who carry on such a business to do so under licence granted by the local authority. The business of selling pet animals is permissible under the Act only when conducted in a shop or from a barrow or stall set up in an authorised street market. The Act prohibits the sale of animals as pets from any other place, with certain exceptions made in the case of the recognised breeders of pedigree animals. It is an offence to sell an animal as a pet in any street or public place, whether or not from any stall or barrow, unless, as I have said, the stall or barrow is set up in an authorised street market. It is an offence also to sell an animal as a pet to any child whom there is reason to believe is under the age of 12.
In the controls which it places upon premises which the Act empowers local authorities to license—that is to say shops, or barrows or stalls in proper street markets—the local authority is required before granting a licence to have particular regard to various things. They include the need for ensuring that the animals will be kept at all times in accommodation that is suitable as respects size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness; and that mammals will not be sold at too early an age. The local authority must attach such conditions to the licences as are necessary to achieve these standards, and may inspect licensed premises at all reasonable times.
I have tried to show the House that the law already provides a considerable battery of measures which are aimed at preventing the infliction of suffering to pet animals. I need hardly tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what the law is, as he is an eminent lawyer. The measures range from criminal penalties on those who are convicted of inflicting cruelty, to measures which seek to reduce the chances of animals getting into situations where they are

likely to suffer, by making it an offence to abandon an animal or to sell it as a pet in any place which is not under proper control.
However, as in all matters where society wishes to see civilised conduct, the law has only one part to play. It can lay down broad standards and deal with extremes, but it is to the good sense of the public and to the advice which they can obtain from those who are knowledgeable about the welfare of animals that we should look to meet the concerns which have been expressed. The problems which can arise when animals are given as pets to people who are not in a position to care for them are obvious. This is why some animal welfare organisations advise against such giving, particularly at Christmas, which is regarded as too unsettled a time to introduce a young animal to the home. As one would expect, the RSPCA is foremost among those organisations in promoting public awareness of the problems.
Nevertheless, the giving of animals as gifts at this time of year does go on, and some bodies supply information to the general public on how best to care for their pets. Again the RSPCA is prepared to supply free information leaflets and sells books on the subject, and the advice of its local branches is available. Its pre-Christmas publicity campaign advises people not to give pets as Christmas presents even by agreement with the recipient. If people receive an animal as a gift and they do not want to keep it, they should contact their local RSPCA inspector who will do his best to help.
Literature is also available from the Pet Health Council, which was established in 1978 by the British Veterinary Association, the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association and the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries. The aim of the council is to educate the public in good pet health and welfare in the interest of the companion animal and the health of the owner. The council distributes its literature through vets in 1,800 pet shops, 1,200 chemists and a growing number of kennels and catteries, in the form of leaflets and posters. These cover subjects such as animal illnesses, training a puppy, and so forth. There are special campaigns to deal with epidemics, the need for vaccinations, and so on. The Pet Food Manufacturers' Association also produces its own leaflets as well as distributing those of the council.
Of all this helpful advice, the most relevant to the situation to which the hon. and learned Member has addressed himself is the Pet Health Council's leaflet "10 Points on Choosing a Pet". It is brief and very much to the point and I would, with the permission of the House, like to quote from it. The leaflet asks potential owners to think about the sort of pet they want to keep and why they want to keep it, and goes on to say:
You must have a liking for or interest in animals and a willingness to care for them. Remember when you buy a puppy or kitten that you are taking him on for the whole of his life; it is quite irresponsible to take on a pet and then dispose of it once the novelty has worn off. Never buy on impulse, think first, look at lots of animals and learn what's involved before you start. Don't let your heart rule your head; never take on a pet simply because you are sorry for him.
The leaflet reminds the potential owner that a pet obtained from a low grade shop or street market could become a liability. It has useful advice on the preparation that should be made before the pet is taken into the home. I think that this is wise, because it is much more likely, if thought has been given to such matters beforehand, that the pet will be regarded as a permanent and acceptable


addition to the household. Equally usefully, the process of purchasing the necessary equipment and the making of the necessary arrangements for the animal's proper reception may give the potential purchasers cause to stop and think about whether they really want to commit themselves to that amount of trouble indefinitely. Even the smallest animal involves a certain amount of paraphernalia. The Pet Health Council's leaflet says:
Have a box or bed and food ready for the puppy or kitten. Have a cage and food ready for the bird or hamster. Think ahead also before you take him home. Get the puppy when you can foresee a clear eight weeks at home.
The leaflet goes on to remind potential owners of the attention that has to be given to the medical care of pets, both in preventing illness and in dealing with it when it arises. The leaflet urges the owner not to delay in getting medical advice and points out that every veterinary surgeon is glad to advise a new owner. There can be no excuse for not doing so: vets provide 24-hour cover every day of the week, even on Christmas day.
Advice on the care of animals is of course a specialist matter. I am satisfied that it is available from a variety of sources to those who, after due consideration, decide to give, and those who receive, pets as gifts at Christmas. The British people have a high reputation for the care and concern that they devote to the welfare of animals. I do not say that it could not be improved upon. Improvements can always be made and it is right that the matter should be under continuous scrutiny.
As the Minister at the Home Office whose responsibilities include the welfare of animals, I am very much aware of the deeply held views of the public about the need to protect them. I am sure that most—if not all—Members of Parliament can testify to this from their postbags. The law has a part to play and I have explained its role.
The Government also have a responsibility on this matter and a particular responsibility for the statutes. However, I do not consider, especially in view of the wealth of advice which is already available to the public, that a full-scale Government campaign about advising the public on the care of animals given as Christmas gifts is warranted. Nevertheless, the message that I would wish to go out clearly from our debate this afternoon is that the public should consider giving such gifts only after careful thought and that they will make good use of those several sources of excellent advice which are only too willing and able to help. At this time of giving, let us remember to give animals the care and attention they need and deserve.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has performed a useful service in raising this topic. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. and learned Gentleman a very happy Christmas.

Louth Bypass

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Were I a man without great respect for our rules of order, I should ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order to wish you and all the Officers and servants of the House a very happy Christmas and successful 1982. However, as it is not in your gift, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow me to be

out of order, I shall record that had you been able to permit it, I should have wished those people a very happy Christmas and successful 1982.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Gentleman may be out of order, but I thank him very warmly for his wishes.

Mr. Brotherton: I am also grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have this opportunity at long last to raise the much-vexed question of the Louth bypass. The Minister, who has kindly come to reply to my observations, will be as aware as I am of the long history of this stretch—or non-stretch—of road.
Some years ago, an exhibition was mounted in Louth and many routes were put forward. Eventually—I use that word advisedly, because I had to write to the Minister again, again and, as he will agree, again—it was agreed that the yellow route should be the preferred route. We all rejoiced mightily at that, because planning blight had been removed from all the other routes. Alas, at the same time the Minister said that it would not be possible to give any date for the construction of the Louth bypass. As the Department agreed to the route, the need for a bypass has been established. The Department agrees that the town needs a bypass.
Paragraph 3 of the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1980" states:
We will give high priority to improving links to major ports like Hull, Immingham".
Immingham is in my constituency and is only a stone's throw away from Louth. It is only 20 miles away by road. If more traffic is brought into Immingham, more traffic will automatically be brought down the A16 to Louth. The other day it was stated that Wisbech would be granted a bypass and that greatly astonished us in Lincolnshire.
That brings me to paragraphs 139 and 140 in the White Paper. The Minister will recall, as he was a Minister at the time, that his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport, who has now moved on to other pastures, published it. Paragraph 139 states:
Among other schemes in the region"—
that refers to the East Midlands—
we attach great importance to removing through traffic from the historic city of Lincoln.
Paragraph 140 mentions the A16 Stamford to Grimsby road, and goes on to state:
On the last route, the recently-opened Boston Inner Relief Road provides valuable environmental relief to a conservation area in this historic town.
I agree that we have many historic towns in Lincolnshire, the city of Lincoln and the town of Boston being two of them, but surely Louth is at least as historic as either of them.
The White Paper goes on in paragraphs 43 and 44 to talk about measuring the needs. It states:
Since funds for building new roads are limited, we need the best methods of assessment to help decide what to build and what to do first. Is a new road needed? Should it be a new cross-country route, or … a series of bypasses? …These decisions are often difficult. …We will pay special attention to three factors: First, the way a scheme contributes to the economy. …"—
I have already mentioned that the White Paper in paragraph 3 talks about sending more traffic to Immingham—
Second, a scheme's environmental impact. …"—
to which I shall come—
Third, the way people feel about a scheme.


I assure my hon. and learned Friend that people in Louth and the outlying districts feel strongly about the need for such a bypass.
As I have already said, Louth is an historic town. I do not know whether the Minister has been there, but anyone who has—I advise anyone who has not been there to visit it—knows that it is one of the most beautiful market towns in England. St. James' church has the tallest spire of any parish church in England. It is a church of unique beauty. We have a series of buildings and narrow roads that must be preserved at all costs.
But what is happening? St. James' church wobbles every time lorries trundle round the corner up Upgate towards Mercer Lane. People who live in the houses in the conservation area also tremble as lorries go past on the too narrow roads. The impact of traffic on the so-called main A16 is immense and has increased with the opening of the Humber bridge. Before the Minister tries in his reply to say that I was a great opponent of the Humber bridge, I point out that one reason why I opposed that bridge was that until we had decent road systems on the south bank of the Humber it was daft to build such a white elephant.
If one wishes to have a short-term palliative, the one thing that one cannot do in a conservation area is to widen the roads, because the road line must remain exactly the same. If the Minister were to say otherwise, he would be arguing that conservation areas mean nothing and that if he had the whim or the will he could destroy such areas.
I turn now to traffic. The so-called main A16 runs through my constituency—the town of Louth. Inside the town it is totally inadequate to deal with the ever-increasing weight of traffic that has been built up, not only by the Humber bridge, but by much use during the years. If the Minister or any Department of Transport official were to come to Louth to look at the A16, he would realise that the time is long overdue for a bypass to be built.
That is not our only problem about main road traffic. The Minister must be aware that Louth is the focal point of other roads such as the A153 and A157. There is an enormous weight of traffic that runs through the town, especially in the summer, to Mablethorpe, Skegness and the holiday resorts of the East Coast. Any road count in the town should—although it has not always been the case—take into account not only the Monday to Friday traffic, but the weekend traffic during the summer.
I wish to quote from a letter written to me in a fair, juvenile hand from someone who is obviously away at school or university:
It will be awful to lose some of our older and more beautiful buildings, most of all St. James', which means so much to Louth and to all of us who live there.
I must raise the question of safety. Is the Minister aware that at the traffic lights near St. James' church heavy lorries have to pass each other, but to do so one of them has to mount the pavement to let the other through? That cannot be good for the structure of the town or, more importantly, the lives of the people of Louth. That is another argument to prove the inability of the roads to cope with the traffic.
The A16 has been bypassed in many places, including Holton-le-Clay in my constituency and Spilsby to the south of my constituency. What do those two bypasses contribute to Louth? Obviously, they contribute a great build-up of traffic. It is patently ridiculous to bypass Holton-le-Clay and Spilsby, yet not to bypass Louth, with

all its historic interest and beautiful buildings. I fear that the way in which the Department approaches the problem will eventually destroy the beautiful church of St. James.
I accept that the bypass will not be built in 1982. I seek an assurance from the Minister this afternoon that he will shortly give us a date when it will be built. It is all very well to say that the yellow route has been approved and we must do away with the planning blight on the red, the black and the blue, but those who live on the approved yellow route still suffer from planning blight. The Department and the Minister owe it to them to say when the bypass will be built, even if it is 1985, 1986 or 1987.
In the short term, I ask the Minister to consider a palliative, although it is no answer to the problem. Is it possible to reduce the weight or size of the vehicles passing through Louth? The measurements round St. James' church are terrifying. We would welcome the Minister if he came to Louth on any one of the 365 days of the year. We would show him the real extent of the problem. Is there nothing that can be done in the short term? We shall not be satisfied until, eventually, we have our own bypass.
There is no one point that makes the Louth bypass appear to be the most important item on the road building programme, but the combination of weight of traffic, environmental considerations, and the number of main roads that meet in the historic town—east to west traffic to the coastal resorts and traffic from the farms, industry and the Humber bridge—show an overwhelmingly sustained case for saying that Louth not only deserves, but demands, that a bypass be built.
I saw on the front page of The Times Business News today that EEC money is being given to provide roads in the much overfed and fat South-East of England. Will not the Minister think again of the provinces—of historic Lincolnshire, the county from which the greatness of England derived? Will he not give us a mere two or three miles of bypass to save one of the most historic towns in England? I assure the Minister that, I and my constituents will never cease to hound him and his successor until justice is done for the people of my constituency and the bypass is built.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport I Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on having secured the very last debate of 1981. I am not surprised that he has chosen to raise the question of the Louth bypass, because, as he said, he has been hounding me on this matter in the most pleasant possible way on behalf of his constituents for as long as I have held my present post in the Department of Transport. I understand how strongly he feels about the bypass.
I appreciate that many people in Louth are desperately waiting for a bypass to take traffic around their town. The Government have the difficulty of deciding what order of priority must be followed in marshalling the queues, as it were, of towns waiting for bypasses. We have maintained the trunk road programme. It has not been cut back and we are delivering the roads that we planned to time. However, there will inevitably be some delay before every town and village that needs a bypass can be saved from the heavy traffic that is passing through them.
We tried to explain the background of our policy in the White Paper on roads, from which my hon. Friend quoted,


and again, in our recent White Paper on lorries, people and the environment. In both those documents we stress the priority that we are giving to bypasses, and as a Government we are achieving a great deal. More than a third of the mileage driven by the heaviest lorries is now on the motorways. This proportion will increase as we complete the motorway network. Over half of the historic towns on trunk roads have been relieved of through traffic either by specific bypasses or by new routes, but the Government are keen to do still more.
In last year's review of the road programme the Government gave priority to schemes that would improve the environment in towns and villages. The schemes started during 1981, for example, will take traffic away from the heart of about 40 communities. About one quarter of the money that is being spent on new roads over the next two years will be on schemes that are specifically bypasses, but nearly every scheme in our programme will take traffic away from built-up areas. We announced in the White Paper on lorries that we are starting three new bypasses, in addition to the large programme already in hand. We are also giving increased priority to seven more.
Although we are giving priority to bypasses, this does not mean that we can press ahead immediately with every scheme. We have to examine the local situation, the possibilities of finding an acceptable route and, of course, the cost. We must compare the case for one bypass with other pressing cases before deciding how we shall marshal the queue.
My hon. Friend has eloquently described the conditions in Louth. I know the town quite well. I shall not reminisce in a Christmassy way but I grew up in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and so the road to Mablethorpe and Skegness is well known to me. The road always took me through Louth. I have not been there so often in recent years, but I am familiar with many attractive features of the town, including the quite striking church of St. James. Now that I take an interest in medieval church architecture I occasionally consult Pevsner, one of the great bibles, and I have discovered that he describes the church of St. James as one of the most majestic in England with the most perfect of perpendicular steeples.
Louth is an extremely attractive town, but, unfortunately, it has a medieval street plan through which modern day traffic passes. I do not seek to argue with my hon. Friend's description of conditions in the main town of his constituency. It is plain that the street pattern was never designed for the type of traffic that now goes through it. Conditions are undoubtedly very unpleasant for his constituents day by day.
Before the bypass can come, we must consider other possibilities for dealing with the problem. My hon. Friend has suggested that we should introduce weight and size restrictions on vehicles entering the town. I can speak only for the trunk road, because that is all that the Government are responsible for. Lincolnshire county council is the highway authority for most of the roads in Louth and I expect that it faces the same problems and similar considerations as the Government do when dealing with trunk road traffic.
There are two main reasons why I find it difficult to accept that a ban on heavy or large vehicles should be imposed. First, Louth is itself a destination for quite a few

vehicles, including some of the larger ones. There will always have to be deliveries to supermarkets, other shops and industrial premises in the town.
Secondly, there is no nearby alternative route. The nearest remotely reasonable north-south routes are 10 miles away—the A1031 along the East Coast, and the A46 through Market Rasen to the west. Neither of those routes is any more suitable for traffic than the A16. I very much doubt whether those who live along them would appreciate having the heavy traffic diverted along them. It would also add a long detour to the journey if drivers had to use them.

Mr. Brotherton: Would it not be possible for the supermarkets and other organisations to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred to send smaller lorries?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that they use them where possible, but it depends where they have to deliver to in Louth. But if the supermarkets in Louth are made to rely on smaller lorries for their deliveries than the rest of the supermarket chain, it could have a very undesirable effect on the price range of goods in the shops where my hon. Friend's constituents shop. It would be very difficult to impose on the town a particular penalty that stopped heavier vehicles going into the town.
The other problem, apart from the traffic that must go through the town, is that there is no readily available suitable route along which one could divert the present heavy through traffic until one has built a bypass.
Some things have been done for the town. The Department of Transport and Lincolnshire county council have introduced waiting restrictions to ensure that parked cars do not block traffic, but at present we do not think that there is anything more that we can do within the limitations of the existing road network.
That takes me to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend: that the only practical answer to the problems in Louth is to build a bypass. It is true that there have been preparations for a bypass for a few years now. The Department started looking for a possible route for one in 1975. By 1979 we had reached the stage of being able to show the public what the options were and to invite their opinions—the process of so-called public consultation. That showed that there was a very clear preference for the route known as the yellow route in the documents that we issued, which runs well away from Louth to the west. That was the route that eventually I picked as the preferred route.
Again, it is right to say that my hon. Friend wrote to me repeatedly asking that we should choose the preferred route after the public consultation. But the difficulty was that it was hard to justify giving high priority to the work, even on the selection of the route, when we had already put Louth in the category of schemes where work was temporarily suspended until we could put a definite date on the construction of the road.
When we drew up our first roads White Paper, we decided that we had to make a clear selection of priorities and to make sure that our efforts and the use of engineering skill and administrative time were not spread across the entire trunk road programme; that we should concentrate in the first place on those roads that were likely to be built in the near future and suspend for the time being work on a number of others that would have to wait a few years before their turn came. Louth was put into that category.


That meant that it was very difficult to get on with the work, even of choosing the preferred route. At present it is difficult to get on with further work of preparing it.
What will happen is that work on the road will continue to be suspended until such time as we know that we shall have the resources to be able to construct it in a few years' time. Then we shall resume work, appoint engineers to design the road, and press on as quickly as possible to construction date.
My hon. Friend has pressed me to say when we expect that date to be and when we are able to build the scheme. I am afraid that we have concluded that Louth bypass is not one to which we can give priority at present, and it will have to wait a year or two, and it will have to depend upon the progress that we can make with the very many other bypass schemes in the road programmes before we are able to put a firm date on the construction of this bypass.
My hon. Friend quoted from the roads White Paper setting out the criteria that the Government have taken into account in deciding what roads should be given priority. The Government's first priority must be to ensure the recovery of the national economy. That means that we must be selective about the projects that we undertake and particualrly careful to make sure that we get value for money out of road schemes. We are tending to concentrate on those that show worthwhile economic benefits. It is worth building new roads only where both the economic and environmental benefits that they bring are greater than the cost.
At Louth, there are difficulties in making out an economic case for the bypass. Because we propose to follow a route that runs well away from the town, the bypass will be quite a lot longer as a route for traffic than the existing road. That means that the cost of building the road is relatively high for a town of this size, because it requires a long route to go round it. The savings to drivers in terms of time and fuel by avoiding the congested town centre are partially offset by the extra distance that they have to drive on the rather roundabout bypass. In the economic analysis that we apply to road schemes, the costs are pushed up and the economic benefits are pushed down. It is difficult to demonstrate that the Louth bypass gives as good value for money as many of the schemes to which we are now giving higher priority.

Mr. Brotherton: But what about Louth? What about St. James' church? What about the environment? What about keeping the middle of this historic town upright as opposed to falling down? Does not that come into the Ministry's considerations?

Mr. Clarke: That is the main case for the Louth bypass. I have demonstrated the difficulties of showing a good economic case. If economic criteria were to determine all road schemes, Louth would probably never get a bypass. It is in our programme. We have chosen a preferred route and eventually we intend to give Louth a bypass because of the environmental benefit that the road would bring. Even then, we have to compare the claims of Louth with the claims of other towns. Even the environmental benefits in Louth are not so great as those that can be achieved in some other cases.
Let me explain again to my hon. Friend some of the limitations on what can be achieved by building a bypass round Louth. The amount of through traffic on the A16 is not great. Many drivers on the A16 are going to or from

Louth itself. We tested that out with vehicles censuses. For example, of the 6,000 vehicles that enter the town each day from the north, 3,400 are actually going to a destination in the town centre and would not use the bypass. Taking all the roads in the town, only a little over a quarter of the traffic on an average day will be removed. So, even with a bypass, there would still be some congestion in the town, although I agree that it would be reduced to a worthwhile extent. Against those modest environmental benefits, there are some environmental disadvantages. The bypass would certainly take up farmland, and for much of its length would he in the Lincolnshire wolds, part of which has been formally designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
I am spelling out to my hon. Friend the reasons why the bypass is in the list of schemes to be temporarily suspended and why, for the time being, we have decided not to press on with it at the same speed as the roads around Wisbech and the others that he quoted. The economic case for the bypass is far from good. There are environmental advantages, but it is not so easy in Louth to achieve the great advantages and environmental improvements that some of our other schemes can provide.
My hon. Friend pressed me to deal with the problem of east-west traffic as well as north-south traffic. The A157, which runs to Mablethorpe on the coast, is a county road for which Lincolnshire county council is primarily responsible. Our bypass, although intended to serve A16 traffic, will also provide an alternative for east-west traffic. Our experts have calculated that 87 per cent. of all the through traffic should use the bypass but, as I have said, unfortunately the through traffic is only a part of the problem.
I understand the local feeling and the disappointment that is being caused by the fact that we cannot press ahead immediately with the bypass. I hope that I have not added to it too much by spelling out the snags that we have encountered. As my hon. Friend has gone to the trouble of pressing for an Adjournment debate, he, like his constituents, obviously finds it difficult to understand why Louth is not getting the same attention as other towns in the programme. Therefore, it is only fair to spell out to him the difficulties and the reasons why Louth continues to wait its turn in the queue.
I hope that the time will come when we can afford to build the bypass. I emphasise that the building of it is merely suspended and awaiting the time when the funds are available and preparation work can be resumed, but at present there are more urgent schemes in other parts of the country, because they have even worse problems or because it is easier to build a bypass around other towns to produce more dramatic short-term improvements. I am afraid that it will be some time before we reach a stage in the road trunk road programme and in our economic recovery when we can find the resources to contemplate schemes like the Louth bypass.
I am sorry to end on a Scrooge-like and disappointing note. I have set out the snags and held out distant expectations for my hon. Friend's constituents. I have no doubt that he will persist and hound me and that I shall constantly be reminded of the problems of Louth in 1982, as I have been in 1981.
I end on a final and more cheery note in which I am in agreement with my hon. Friend. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the staff of the House, my hon. Friend and his constituents a very merry Christmas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I adjourn the House for the Christmas Recess, may I warmly reciprocate the good wishes that have been expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Three o'clock till Monday 18 January 1982, at half past Two o'clock, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 21 December.